title: Evaluation of the feasibility and acceptability of the 'Care for Stroke' intervention in India, a smartphone-enabled, carer-supported, educational intervention for management of disability following stroke.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  (1) To identify operational issues encountered by study participants in using the 'Care for Stroke' intervention; (2) to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.
  
  
  METHODS
  Mixed-methods research design.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participant's home. Participants were selected from a tertiary hospital in Chennai, South India.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty stroke survivors treated and discharged from the hospital, and their caregivers.
  
  
  METHODS
  'Care for Stroke' is a smartphone-enabled, educational intervention for management of physical disabilities following stroke. It is delivered through a web-based, smartphone-enabled application. It includes inputs from stroke rehabilitation experts in a digitised format.
  
  
  METHODS
  Evaluation of the intervention was completed in two phases. In the first phase, the preliminary intervention was field-tested with 30 stroke survivors for 2 weeks. In the second phase, the finalised intervention was provided to a further 30 stroke survivors to be used in their homes with support from their carers for 4 weeks.
  
  
  METHODS
  
  
  
  METHODS
  (1) operational difficulties in using the intervention; (2) feasibility and acceptability of the intervention in an Indian setting. Disability and dependency were assessed as secondary outcomes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Field-testing identified operational difficulties related to connectivity, video-streaming, picture clarity, quality of videos, and functionality of the application. The intervention was reviewed, revised and finalised before pilot-testing. Findings from the pilot-testing showed that the 'Care for Stroke' intervention was feasible and acceptable. Over 90% (n=27) of the study participants felt that the intervention was relevant, comprehensible and useful. Over 96% (n=29) of the stroke survivors and all the caregivers (100%, n=30) rated the intervention as excellent and very useful. These findings were supported by qualitative interviews.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Evaluation indicated that the 'Care for Stroke' intervention was feasible and acceptable in an Indian context. An assessment of effectiveness is now warranted.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Research, International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Sureshkumar
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Research, International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
authors.forename: Gvs
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Murthy
authors.affiliation: TS Srinivasan Institute of Neurological Sciences, VHS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Natarajan
authors.affiliation: Indian Institute of Public Health (Pubic Health Foundation of India) Hyderabad, Amar Cooperative Society, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Naveen
authors.affiliation: Indian Institute of Public Health (Public Health Foundation of India), Delhi, Haryana, India.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Goenka
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Research, International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kuper
mesh_terms: D017028:Caregivers / Q000193:education*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D007194:India; D063731:Mobile Applications; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D010865:Pilot Projects; D000068997:Smartphone; D000071939:Stroke Rehabilitation; D017741:Survivors
keywords: GERIATRIC MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; REHABILITATION MEDICINE
references.citation: Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
references.pmid: 3363593
references.citation: BMJ Innov. 2015 Jul;1(3):127-136
references.pmid: 26246902
references.citation: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Dec;66(12):1182-6
references.pmid: 22577181
references.citation: Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;30(1):7-14
references.pmid: 20424439
references.citation: BMJ Innov. 2015 Jul;1(3):117-126
references.pmid: 26751379
references.citation: Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
references.pmid: 14258950
references.citation: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;82(10):1074-82
references.pmid: 21402745
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117
references.pmid: 24047204
references.citation: Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 May;50(5):585-7
references.pmid: 23159017
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(2):105-14
references.pmid: 3335877
references.citation: BMJ. 2015;350:h1258
references.pmid: 25791983