SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Digit. Health
Sec. Human Factors and Digital Health
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1544754
This article is part of the Research TopicOptimising Participant Recruitment in Digital Health ResearchView all 5 articles
How equitable is digital rehabilitation for people after stroke? A systematic review using an equity approach
Provisionally accepted- 1University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
- 2Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom
- 3College of Saint Scholastica, Duluth, United States
- 4Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, North West England, United Kingdom
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Stroke is the largest global cause of adult neuro-disability. Health inequities increase the risk of stroke and are likely to influence overall recovery. Rehabilitation after stroke seeks to restore function and independence and may utilise digital technologies to augment usual care. This study systematically investigates the reporting of equity factors in digital stroke rehabilitation research. Methods: This systematic review examined equity factors contained in the PROGRESS-Plus framework in a random sample of clinical trials of technologies used as part of stroke rehabilitation published in 2011-2021. Four reviewers double-screened titles and abstracts of 14,724 papers. A random selection was carried out across all potentially eligible papers (n=821) and 135 papers were reviewed for data extraction. Each study was coded with 36point PROGRESS-plus criteria for inclusion, exclusion, and baseline characteristics. ANOVA and multivariable linear regression were used to assess the variation in PROGRESS-Plus reporting by year of publication, location, type of technology used, intervention target, number of comparison groups and sample size.Results: 87 studies were included with a mean PROGRESS-Plus score of 7.05 (SD=2.06), minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 14. Despite their importance to health outcomes, education, social capital and socioeconomic status were reported by less than 5% of studies.The most commonly reported equity factors were age, disability and gender. There were no significant differences in reporting by technology used, target of the intervention (upper or lower limb), sample size, location, number of comparison groups and sample size. Variation in equity reporting was not explained through multiple linear regression factors. There was a small positive correlation between the year of publication and the PROGRESS-Plus score (r=.26, n=87, p<0.05).Discussion: Few studies of digital rehabilitation interventions considered several key equity factors, including those recognised to precipitate digital exclusion and influence health
Keywords: Stroke, Rehabilitation, Digital, Digital Health, Equity, PROGRESS plus
Received: 13 Dec 2024; Accepted: 28 May 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Stockley, Hirst, Hayes, Watkins and Goodwin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Rachel C Stockley, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.