Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Video Narratives Intervention Among Stroke Survivors: Feasibility and Acceptability Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Appalasamy, Jamuna Rani, Joseph, Joyce Pauline, Seeta Ramaiah, Siva, Md Zain, Anuar Zaini, Quek, Kia Fatt, Tha, Kyi Kyi·2020·JMIR Aging

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: A large number of stroke survivors worldwide suffer from moderate to severe disability. In Malaysia, long-term uncontrolled stroke risk factors lead to unforeseen rates of recurrent stroke and a growing incidence of stroke occurrence across ages, predominantly among the elderly population. This situation has motivated research efforts focused on tapping into patient education, especially related to patient self-efficacy of understanding and taking medication appropriately. Video narratives integrated with health belief model constructs have demonstrated potential impacts as an aide to patient education efforts. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of study procedures based on a randomized controlled trial protocol of a video narratives intervention among poststroke patients. We also aimed to obtain preliminary findings of video narratives related to medication understanding and use self-efficacy (MUSE) and blood pressure control. Methods: A parallel group randomized controlled trial including a control group (without video viewing) and an intervention group (with video viewing) was conducted by researchers at a neurology outpatient clinic on poststroke patients (N=54). Baseline data included patients’ sociodemographic characteristics, medical information, and all outcome measures. Measurements of MUSE and blood pressure following the trial were taken during a 3-month follow-up period. Feasibility of the trial was assessed based on recruitment and study completion rates along with patients’ feedback on the burden of the study procedures and outcome measures. Acceptability of the trial was analyzed qualitatively. Statistical analysis was applied to ascertain the preliminary results of video narratives. Results: The recruitment rate was 60 out of 117 patients (51.3%). Nevertheless, the dropout rate of 10% was within the acceptable range. Patients were aged between 21 and 74 years. Nearly 50 of the patients (>85%) had adequate health literacy and exposure to stroke education. Most of the patients (>80%) were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, whereby the majority had primary hypertension. The technicalities of randomization and patient approach were carried out with minimal challenge and adequate patient satisfaction. The video contents received good responses with respect to comprehension and simplicity. Moreover, an in-depth phone interview with 8 patients indicated that the video narratives were considered to be useful and inspiring. These findings paralleled the preliminary findings of significant improvement within groups in MUSE (P=.001) and systolic blood pressure control (P=.04). Conclusions: The queries and feedback from each phase in this study have been acknowledged and will be taken forward in the full trial. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12618000174280; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373554

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/17182

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flowchart of poststroke patients throughout the study.
Figure 1 CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flowchart of poststroke patients throughout the study.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Brown, C, 2006, Narrative Therapy: Making Meaning, Making Lives
  2. 10.2337/diaspect.17.4.219 · DOI
  3. Baldick, C, 2015, The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, 10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/10810730903528017 · DOI
  5. 10.1097/00006205-200500001-00007 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/1472-6963-10-77 · DOI
  7. 10.1558/cam.v8i1.17 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/1524839916658023 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/2333393616646518 · DOI
  10. 10.1097/tld.0000000000000066 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.07.025 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2010.00478.x · DOI
  13. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2196/14399 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1007/s10433-011-0176-6 · DOI
  17. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016814 · DOI
  18. 10.1097/md.0000000000002417 · DOI
  19. 10.2147/PPA.S151053 · DOI
  20. Bandura, A, 1977, Social Learning Theory, 384
  21. 10.1177/1090198104263660 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1177/109019818801500203 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.029 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.015 · DOI
  25. 10.1371/journal.pone.0192155 · DOI
  26. 10.1097/md.0000000000010876 · DOI
  27. 10.2196/11539 · DOI
  28. 10.21236/ada098530 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.012 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s11606-008-0833-4 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.029 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.011 · DOI
  33. 10.1310/RED5-V47T-8MJN-JY9H · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.10.020 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00057-4 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.joa.2015.10.003 · DOI
  38. Norfazilah, A, 2013, Malays Fam Physician, 8, 19
  39. 10.1016/j.vhri.2017.12.010 · DOI
  40. Sararaks, S, 2005, Med J Malaysia, 60, 163
  41. 10.1001/jama.2010.896 · DOI
  42. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014458 · DOI
  43. Alexander, W, 2013, Pharm Therapeut, 38, 225
  44. 10.1007/s11906-013-0401-0 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00109-7 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00326.x · DOI
  47. 10.1111/jmwh.12111 · DOI
  48. 10.1177/1524839916658023 · DOI
  49. 10.7326/0003-4819-154-2-201101180-00004 · DOI
  50. 10.1371/journal.pone.0171952 · DOI
  51. 10.1007/s00198-011-1533-1 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.010 · DOI
  53. 10.1080/08870446.2018.1508686 · DOI
  54. 10.3928/21650799-20120625-04 · DOI
  55. 10.1001/jama.2014.10057 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Hassan, ZA, 2006, Malays Fam Physician, 1, 70
  57. 10.1093/heapro/dat058 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Appalasamy, J. R., Joseph, J. P., Seeta Ramaiah, S., Md Zain, A. Z., Quek, K. F., & Tha, K. K.
Venue
JMIR Aging
Published
2020-07-10
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e17182
ISSN
2561-7605
Cited by
16
References
7
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review