Self‐management interventions vs usual care: Self efficacy Change scores/postintervention Stroke self efficacy Locus of control
Self management programmes may leads to higher self efficacy Change scores/postintervention Stroke self efficacy… compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Self management programmes vs usual care Self efficacy Change scores/postintervention Stroke self efficacy Locus of control · adults with stroke Self management programmes may leads to higher self efficacy Change scores/postintervention Stroke self efficacy… compared with usual care (low certainty). Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | SMD 0.33 [0.04, 0.61] | 6 studies · 403 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.