The cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services and the impact of these services on health and social care resource use: a rapid review ============================================================================================================================================ * Kalpa Pisavadia * Bethany Fern Anthony * Jacob Davies * Sofie Roberts * Rachel Granger * Llinos Haf Spencer * Elizabeth Gillen * Juliet Hounsome * Jayne Noyes * Deborah Fitzsimmons * Rhiannon Tudor Edwards * Adrian Edwards * Alison Cooper * Ruth Lewis ## Abstract In the UK, more than 100,000 strokes occur each year, and this is expected to rise to over 2.1 million by 2035. Life after stroke services aim to support peoples physical and emotional state, are complimentary to rehabilitation and take a non-medical holistic approach to living well after a stroke. This rapid review aimed to identify evidence on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services, and the impact of these interventions on health or social care resource use. The review included evidence from 12 studies (7 economic evaluations and 5 randomised controlled trials), published between January 2000 and August 2024. The economic evaluations assessed a number of interventions to support stroke survivors, their families and caregivers. Two of the randomised controlled trials were partial economic evaluations, reporting on cost and resource use data related to training caregivers, and an arts and health-based intervention. The other three trials reported on resource use but not cost data, and assessed family support interventions, and a telehealth intervention to assist stroke survivors and their carers. There was a lack of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke as a comprehensive service. However, this review identified evidence on the cost-effectiveness and resource utilisation of specific interventions within these services. Findings include that a community-based Individual Management Program for post-stroke survivors was cost-effective from a societal perspective at 24-month follow-up. A carer training intervention, delivered whilst the stroke patient was in hospital, was associated with a reduction in health and social care resource use when evaluated at a single hospital. However, this intervention was not cost-effective when rolled out and assessed across multiple hospitals. Other findings included that a combination of speech and language therapy with voluntary support services had a lower cost per session compared to NHS speech and language therapy alone. Family support organiser interventions for stroke survivors and carers were associated with reduced healthcare utilisation. To fully understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of life after stroke interventions, research is needed to assess potential long-term impacts. A reduction in resource use may be associated with cost savings and reduced burden on the NHS. However, an increase in health care and social care use may also be appropriate due to better signposting or identification of peoples’ needs. Evidence is also needed on the cost-effectiveness of supporting stroke survivors in returning to the workforce. Many of the sample sizes in the included studies lacked ethnic diversity. Stroke trials need strategies to achieve equity of access. This review focused on evidence of cost-effectiveness and resource utilisation. Decisions relating to policy and practice should also consider evidence on clinical effectiveness and patient preferences. ## 1. BACKGROUND ### 1.1 Who is this review for? This Rapid Review was conducted as part of the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre Work Programme. The research question was suggested by representatives of the Stroke Association UK in Wales. The intended audience is stroke service commissioners and policymakers in the UK. This research will be used to help to make the following case to health boards and those who have the means to commission life after stroke services: Investment into quality life after stroke services will help to avoid unnecessary costs in the long run, by highlighting the cost and wider benefits that they bring to the health and social care system. Findings will also be used to guide policy recommendations regarding provisions for life after stroke services. ### 1.2 Background and purpose of this review In the UK, more than 100,000 strokes occur each year, and this is expected to rise to over 2.1 million by 2035 (Stroke Association, 2023). In addition, there are approximately 70,000 stroke survivors living in Wales (Welsh Government, 2024a). Strokes can vary significantly in their impact on individuals. Some strokes may result in mild symptoms, while others can lead to severe disability. The effects of a stroke depend on factors such as the location of the brain affected, the type of stroke (ischemic or haemorrhagic), and the promptness of medical intervention. Some common consequences of strokes are physical impairments (such as difficulty swallowing or speaking) and cognitive challenges (such as memory loss, concentration difficulties, and language impairments) (Donkor, 2018). Strokes can affect the activities of daily living of stroke survivors, including performing basic self-care tasks such as bathing, dressing, and eating (Lee et al, 2021). Appropriate management and care are essential to prevent further strokes. Life after stroke services go beyond clinical interventions. Services may involve a multidisciplinary approach with social care and local authority provision. Additionally, third sector organisations offer a wider range of support, including initiatives such as care navigation, financial support, and social prescribing. Life after stroke services are non-medical and are complementary to rehabilitation with an emphasis on living well after a stroke. Life after stroke support aims to empower people to take an active part in their own recovery. Therefore, it addresses the holistic needs of an individual post-stroke through care navigation, advocacy, information and coaching that has a residual impact on people’s physical and emotional state. Life after stroke services provide targeted assistance in communication and emotional support, including tools, reassurance and peer support with others who have experienced stroke (Stroke Association, 2023). There are also broader services for carers of stroke survivors. Carers can find themselves in care roles overnight, which can have a detrimental effect on the whole family (Magwood et al, 2020). The successful implementation of such services necessitates a focus on ensuring equitable access alongside robust evidence regarding their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Investing in services that improve the health and well-being of stroke survivors and their families will also have the potential to reduce the need for more costly and intense interventions further down the line. This review will focus on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services, which support stroke survivors as they transition back to their daily lives after leaving the hospital. Post stroke services include both rehabilitation and life after stroke services. The remit of the review was on life after stroke services and not rehabilitation. Social care and community settings are included in this review, and non-medical interventions delivered in hospital and community-based settings and interventions delivered by health care professionals that do not include rehabilitation have also been considered. This review reports on evidence on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services from trial-based economic evaluations. The review also reports on cost comparisons and health or social care resource use from randomised controlled trials. This report did not focus on clinical effectiveness evidence of interventions. However, clinical effectiveness is reported where appropriate in economic evaluation studies where the cost-effectiveness evidence is based on clinical effectiveness data. This report did not include evidence relating to views and preferences from qualitative data. ### 1.3 NICE guidance on life after stroke services This section summarises guidance on life after stroke services that were included in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2023 guidance (NG236) on stroke rehabilitation in adults (NICE, 2023). The NICE guidance presented in this section will be revisited and considered in relation to the main findings of this rapid review later in the discussion section of this report (Section 3). The NICE 2023 guidance (NG236) focuses on rehabilitation after a stroke for persons over the age of sixteen. It aims to ensure people are assessed for prevalent issues and conditions associated with stroke to allow them to get the care and therapy they need. It includes recommendations regarding the organisation and implementation of rehabilitation in hospital and community settings. Although this guidance predominantly focuses on clinically-led rehabilitation, some aspects consider the importance of life after stroke services that enhance rehabilitation. For example, one recommendation was the implementation of community participation programmes that encourage involvement in social activities. Such programmes focus on providing education, support or practice in areas such as participation in peer support groups, political or civic roles, leisure activities including exercise, art or music, participation in faith-based groups or organisations, walking or using other means of transport, such as buses, mobility scooters or taxis, employment or voluntary opportunities. The nature of each community engagement programme and the extent of the involvement of health care professionals can vary. The findings of the NICE evidence review identified non-clinically led programmes such as group-based physical exercise and art and music activities that align with life after stroke services. Participants of these programmes typically reported that their quality of life improved, although the benefits they encountered differed among the various programmes used in the studies. Members of the NICE committee also had positive experiences of participating in these programmes and agreed they were of value to people post stroke. Therefore, the committee recommended that people could be referred to a community programme if there was one available which met their needs. They also agreed that family members and carers could find the programmes beneficial in preventing feelings of social isolation, improving quality of life and reducing caregiver strain. NICE recommends that those requiring rehabilitation post-stroke should receive it from a specialised stroke service either within a stroke unit or in the community following early supported discharge. The types of support that NICE recommends are providing support and information to individuals post-stroke, along with their family members and carers. Reviewing a person’s information needs at their 6-month and annual stroke reviews, as well as at the start and end of any therapy, is recommended. Assessing care and support needs should encompass identifying the ongoing needs of the individual affected by stroke and their families and carers. NICE recommends training for family members and carers who are willing and able to be involved in supporting the individual after stroke. The training and support requirements of family members and caregivers should be assessed regularly, recognising that these needs may change over time. Long-term health and social care support should encourage people to focus on life after stroke and help them achieve their goals, which may include daily activities and leisure pursuits, as well as reinforce their social roles, such as in employment, education, volunteering, and community participation programmes. A study in South Africa that focused on a return-to-work programme led by a physiotherapist and occupational therapist found important benefits to returning to work. Based on this evidence, NICE recommends that issues relating to return to work should be promptly identified following stroke and reviewed regularly by identifying the physical, cognitive, communicative and psychological requirements of the job. Any issues that impact work performance should be identified by conducting workplace visits in collaboration with employers to implement reasonable adjustments (NICE, 2023). This rapid review aims to complement the NICE 2023 guidance (NG236) on adult stroke rehabilitation. This rapid review focuses on non-clinical life after stroke services and does not include studies of rehabilitation interventions delivered by health care professionals. We have also considered non-medical interventions delivered in hospital settings and interventions delivered by health care professionals. The rapid review findings reported in Section 2 will be considered in relation to the NICE guidance in the discussion section of this report (Section 3). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T1) Table 1: Study Characteristics ## 2. RESULTS ### 2.1 Overview of the evidence base Evidence of life after stroke service interventions aimed at stroke survivors only is presented in Section 2.2, interventions aimed at informal carers are presented in Section 2.3, followed by evidence of life after stroke services that support both informal carers and stroke survivors in Section 2.4. The evidence includes studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of life after-stroke services or studies that assess their impact on health or social care budgets directly or via their resource use. A detailed summary of the eligibility criteria and the methods used for conducting the review are presented in Section 5. The rapid review search strategy is presented in Appendix 1. After the removal of duplicates, the database searches identified 7,364 references (see Figure 1 in Section 6.1 for the PRISMA diagram). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/F1) Figure 1. **PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of included records (Page et al, 2021)** Following title and abstract screening, 32 papers were retrieved for full text screening. Twelve studies were included in this rapid review: seven economic evaluations and five randomised controlled trials that reported outcome data on health care or social care utilisation. Of these two randomised controlled trials reported comparative cost data. Four studies reported on interventions to support stroke survivors, which included peer-befriending (Flood et al, 2022), community-based provision of longer-term stroke care (Forster et al, 2015), an arts and health-based intervention (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019) and a community-based Individual Management Program (Orman et al, 2024). Three studies reported on interventions for informal carers. Of these, two studies evaluated carer education interventions, and one evaluated an intervention aimed as identifying the carer support needs upfront informal carers of stroke survivors (Kalra et al, 2004; Forster et al, 2013; Patchwood et al, 2021;). Five studies reported on interventions aimed at supporting stroke survivors and carers, which included speech and language therapy and support services (vaan der Gaag and Brooks, 2008), a telehealth support intervention (Bishop et al, 2014), a combined exercise and education intervention (Harrington et al, 2010), and two studies reported on family support interventions (Mant et al, 2000; Tilling et al, 2005). Of the 12 studies included in this review, seven studies were economic evaluations which reported on: * A needs assessment tool for caregivers (Patchwood et al, 2021); * Training for caregivers (Forster et al, 2013); * An exercise and education reintegration programme for stroke survivors and their Families (Harrington et al, 2010), and * A community-based Individual Management Program for post-stroke survivors (Orman et al, 2024). * therapy for stroke survivors and their families (van der Gaag and Brooks, 2008); * peer-befriending for stroke survivors (Flood et al, 2022), and * a post-discharge structured assessment (Forster et al, 2015). Five studies included in this review were randomised controlled trials reporting on the resource use of life after-stroke services. Two of these randomised controlled trials reported on comparative cost data specifically relating to: * Training caregivers (Kalra et al, 2004); An arts and health-based intervention (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019), and Three of these randomised controlled trials did not report on comparative cost data, which specifically related to: * Family support interventions (Mant et al, 2000; Tilling et al, 2005). * A telehealth intervention designed to assist stroke survivors and their carers (Bishop et al, 2014). ### 2.2 Review of interventions to support stroke survivors only Two high quality full economic evaluations, one high quality feasibility economic evaluation and one moderate quality randomised controlled trial are included in this rapid review focusing on interventions for stroke survivors only. Flood and colleagues (2022) aimed to determine the feasibility of carrying out an economic evaluation of a peer-befriending intervention alongside standard care, as compared to standard care alone for individuals with post-stroke aphasia. The intervention involved six one-hour sessions with a peer-befriender who had experienced aphasia or stroke. These sessions consisted of outings, joint activities, conversations, and problem-solving activities. The analysis was conducted over a period of ten months and was undertaken from both NHS health and social care and societal perspectives. The costs were reported in British pound sterling for the cost year 2018/19 (Table 3 Section 6.2). Cost-effectiveness measured by the EQ-5D-5L VAS generated an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of -£4,175. This indicates the intervention was more costly and less effective than usual care alone. Mapping of EQ-5D-5L data to EQ-5D-3L value sets generated an ICER of -£49,488. The ICER for utility, based on an improved change in mood (measured by the GHQ-12), was £373. Peer-befriending combined with usual care was found to be less effective than usual care alone, as measured by the EQ-5D-5L VAS. The mean health outcome gain was 5.19 for the intervention arm and 5.76 for usual care. There were no statistically significant differences in health and social care costs between the control and intervention groups after ten months, except for outpatient appointments, which were higher in the usual care group (p = 0.04). By calculating the average training and supervision costs, in addition to the cost of each befriender visit, the average cost was £57.24 per befriender visit (Flood et al, 2022). In a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken by Forster and colleagues (2015), the objective was to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a post-discharge stroke care system provided by community-based SCCs compared to the usual practice of SCCs. The post-discharge system of care comprised a structured assessment of long-term stroke problems (through sixteen structured assessment questions) and a care plan that included a goal and action planner. Following the initial post-discharge review, subsequent follow-up contacts were conducted to review assessment questions and goals. The number of contacts was determined by the SCCs’ usual practice and patient needs. The lack of clinical effectiveness restricted the cost-effectiveness analysis. At six months, the intervention had low probabilities of cost-effectiveness from both health and societal perspectives and for both outcomes (psychological well-being and functional outcomes for patient and carer) (Forster et al, 2015). A randomised controlled trial by Ellis-Hill and colleagues (2019) aimed to evaluate the acceptability of ‘HeART of Stroke’, a community-based arts and health group intervention, to increase psychological well-being in stroke survivors. HeART of Stroke was facilitated by an experienced arts and health practitioner who prepared creative resources in response to group interests such as paints, drawing materials, clay, textiles and mixed media. ‘Stimulus’ pieces were offered, such as books, poems, images, music and films. Ten (two-hour) sessions were held over a 14-week period. The intervention was combined with usual care and compared to usual care only. Usual care included multidisciplinary medical care. After the ten sessions, individuals in the intervention group evidenced small QALY gains compared to usual care only (0.18 vs 0.17). The intervention would cost the health care payer, on average, £327 per participant in Bournemouth and £657 in Cambridgeshire (cost difference driven by increased venue hire costs in Cambridgeshire). The cost could be as low as £245 per participant at a full capacity of 8 people (in Bournemouth) (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019). Mean resource use contacts and associated costs were comparable across both groups. Differences between groups included greater mean outpatient physiotherapy contacts in the usual care group (0.3 vs 1; £6 vs £20); greater mean ‘other outpatient appointments’ in the usual care group (1.2 vs 2; £140 vs £196) and greater incidence of home care worker contacts in the usual care group (0 vs 0.9; £0 vs £4) (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019). A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by Orman and colleagues (2024) evaluated a comprehensive community-based Individual Management Program for post-stroke survivors. The programme consisted of a nurse-led chronic disease management plan and a tailored health education plan delivered at home by a nurse. Individuals in the intervention group received home visits at baseline, three months and 12 months, with telephone chronic disease management plan reviews at six and 18 months, in addition to usual care. Control group participants received usual care only. QALYs were estimated from utility scores obtained from the Assessment of Quality of Life 4-Dimension (AQoL-4D) questionnaire. These QALYs informed an ICER for intervention versus control, calculated at 12- and 24-months follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in per-person QALYs between the groups within 12 months (β = 0.006, 95% CI: −0.051; 0.063) or 24 months (β = 0.031, 95% CI: −0.070; 0.133) after adjustment. ICERs at 12 months indicated the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective from a health system perspective (AUD 136,363/QALY) or a wider societal perspective (AUD 87,027/QALY) (Orman et al, 2024). When re-calculated at 24 months follow-up, the ICER was AUD 53,175/QALY from a health system perspective, indicating a greater probability of being cost-effective. From a wider societal perspective at 24 months, the intervention was less costly and more effective than usual care with a mean cost of AUD 49,045 and 1.352 QALYs compared to AUD 51,394 and 1.324 QALYs in the usual care group. At 24 months follow-up, there was a 60.5% probability that the intervention was cost-effective from a societal perspective (Orman et al, 2024). At 24 months follow-up, average per-person costs from a societal perspective were greater for the usual care group (AUD 51,394, 95% CI: AUD 43,167; AUD 59,621) compared to the intervention (AUD 49,045, 95% CI: 39,127; AUD 58,962). From a health system perspective, the reverse was true. Average per-person costs were greater in the intervention group (AUD 21,707, 95% CI: AUD 16,929; AUD 26,485 for the intervention) than the usual care group (AUD 20,232, 95% CI: AUD 16,808; AUD 23,655) (Orman et al, 2024). #### 2.2.1 Bottom line results of interventions to support stroke survivors only Neither of the two economic evaluations focusing on interventions to support stroke survivors suggested the intervention could be cost-effective (Forster et al, 2015: Orman et al, 2024). In the peer-befriending intervention assessed by Flood and colleagues, the intervention was found to be more costly and less effective than usual care alone. A post-discharge stroke care system assessed by Forster and colleagues (2015) had low probabilities of cost-effectiveness from both health and societal perspectives and for both outcomes (psychological well-being and functional outcomes for patient and carer). The cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by Orman and colleagues (2024) suggested that a comprehensive community-based Individual Management Program for post-stroke survivors could be cost-effective from a societal perspective at 24-month follow-up. Outcomes measured in QALYs for individuals in the intervention group improved between 12 and 24-month follow-up, increasing the likelihood of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The randomised controlled trial of a community-based arts and health group intervention by Ellis-Hill and colleagues (2019) found comparable health care resource use between the intervention and usual care groups; however, some differences in resource use costs between groups included greater mean outpatient contacts and greater incidence of home care worker contacts in the usual care group (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019). ### 2.3 Review of interventions for informal carers Three UK based studies included in this review reported on interventions aimed at informal carers of stroke survivors. This included two high quality within-trial economic evaluations (Patchwood et al, 2021; Forster et al, 2013) and one high quality randomised controlled trial included health and social care resource use (Kalra et al, 2004). The randomised controlled trial conducted by Kalra and colleagues assessed the impact of a caregiver training intervention on health and social care resource use at 12-months (Kalra et al, 2004). The London Stroke Carer Training Course (LSCTC) was developed and evaluated by Kalra et al, 200 who assessed the intervention in a single London hospital. Although the intervention was delivered within a hospital-based stroke unit, this was a non-medical intervention and may be comparable to life after stroke services that aim to enhance carer knowledge. The intervention involves carer support and training, which would eventually transition to a community setting. Carers in the intervention group received training from appropriate professionals from the stroke rehabilitation unit on prevalent stroke-related issues and methods for their prevention. The control group received carer support but no training. The provision of caregiver training was found to significantly reduce health and social care resource use costs at 12 months (£10,133 (SD: £8676) v £13,794 (SD: £10 510); P = 0.001), which was primarily due to lower hospital resource use costs (£1145 (SD £2553) v £1411 (SD £2742). Non-hospital costs, including community-based resource use costs, were similar for the caregiver training intervention and ‘no training’ groups; however, the use of personal, domestic and respite care services was less in the caregiver training group (Kalra et al., 2004). In addition, this training resulted in improved psychosocial outcomes for both carers and stroke survivors after one year, with carers reporting less anxiety (3 vs 4; p = 0.0001) and depression (2 vs 3; p = 0.0001) as well as better quality of life (80 vs 70; p = 0.001) (Kalra et al, 2004). The participants and those delivering the intervention in this trial were not blinded, which means that the group that they were allocated to (intervention or control) was not concealed and may have impacted their behaviour or interpretation of the outcome. The authors of this study acknowledged this as a study limitation, saying that there is a possibility that the measurement of the outcomes between groups and results of the study may be distorted (Kalra et al, 2004). A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis conducted by Forster and colleagues (2013) aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a structured, competency-based training programme for caregivers. The LSCTC was the same intervention developed and evaluated by Kalra and colleagues, who assessed the intervention in a single London hospital. However, in this current economic evaluation, Forster and colleagues went on to assess the LSCTC across multiple hospitals. The intervention was delivered by community-based stroke care coordinators (SCC) while the patient was still in the stroke rehabilitation unit. The economic evaluation was undertaken from NHS health and social care and societal perspectives over a one-year time horizon. The costs that were assessed included health and social care services, as well as the cost associated with delivering the intervention, which included the development of the programme and staff training. The LSCTC was not determined to be cost-effective when compared to usual care due to a lack of clinical effectiveness and marginal differences in costs (Forster et al, 2013). Total health and social care and societal costs were broadly similar between groups at all assessment points. However, caregivers in the intervention group had higher health and social care costs after six months, with an increase of £207 (95% CI: £5 to £408). The disparity ceased to exist after twelve months and was not evident when the costs from both evaluation periods were combined as one-year costs. The primary outcomes of the trial were functional independence for stroke survivors and caregiver burden. When compared to usual care, the LSCTC programme was found to not be as effective in improving stroke survivors’ long-term recovery or psychological well-being. The LSCTC was also not as effective as usual care in alleviating caregiver burden or improving their psychological well-being (Forster et al, 2013). A trial-based cost-utility analysis conducted by Patchwood and colleagues (2021) aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) for stroke survivors. Although the intervention was practitioner-facilitated, it took a person-centred approach that enabled carers to identify and prioritise their unmet needs and participate in tailoring personalised support. The cost-utility analysis was undertaken from an NHS perspective over a one-year time horizon. The costs that were assessed included health and social care services, as well as the cost associated with delivering the intervention. These costs were reported in British pound sterling for the cost year 2017/18 (Table 3, Section 6.2). The analysis determined that the intervention is not likely to be cost-effective when compared to usual care. The net expenses amounted to £39.05, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from -£69.61 to £147.71. The difference in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) was estimated to be -0.004, suggesting a marginal decrease in the quality of life for carers receiving the intervention. The 95% confidence interval for this QALY estimate ranged from -0.020 to 0.012 (Patchwood et al, 2021). There was no difference in resource utilisation between the intervention and usual care groups, apart from practice nurse contacts, which were used by a greater proportion of the intervention group, 43%, compared with 28% in the usual care group. Overall, mean costs for NHS resource use were marginally higher in the intervention group primarily due to staff training in the intervention arm and additional carer support, which amounted to 4.7 hours compared to 4.2 hours (Patchwood et al, 2021). #### 2.3.1 Bottom line results for interventions to support informal caregivers Two studies evaluated the same carer training intervention, which was a non-clinical intervention delivered by healthcare professionals in a hospital setting while the stroke survivor was an in-patient. In one study, the intervention was delivered in a single unit (Kalra et al, 2004) and then went on to be delivered across multiple stroke units in an economic evaluation (Forster et al, 2013). Carer training is associated with a significant reduction in health and social care resource use at 12 months; this is primarily due to lower hospital resource use costs. Non-hospital costs, including community-based resource use costs, were similar for the caregiver training intervention and ‘no training’ groups; however, the use of personal, domestic and respite care services was less in the caregiver training group (Kalra et al., 2004). Caregiver training immediately following a stroke was not cost-effective in the economic evaluation assessed by Forster and Colleagues (2013). The total health and social care and societal costs in this study were broadly similar between groups at all assessment points. The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) for stroke assessed by Patchwood and colleagues (2021) was not cost-effective compared to usual care. The mean costs for NHS resource use were marginally higher in the intervention group in this study. ### 2.4 Review of interventions to support both informal caregivers and stroke survivors Four studies reported on interventions aimed at both stroke survivors and carers. One medium quality feasibility economic evaluation (van der Gaag and Brooks 2008) and three high quality randomised controlled trials interventions providing family support for stroke survivors and informal carers were evaluated compared to usual care (Mant et al, 2000; Tilling et al, 2005; Bishop et al, 2014). A within-trial cost-consequence analysis conducted by Harrington et al. (2010) aimed to improve the integration and well-being of stroke survivors and their families through a community-based intervention that combined exercise and education. The intervention was facilitated by volunteers and qualified exercise instructors and was supported by a physiotherapist. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate physical improvement and the individual’s ability to reintegrate into a “normal” lifestyle. The economic analysis was undertaken from an NHS health and social care perspective and a societal perspective over a one-year time horizon. The costs assessed included health and social care services, the costs associated with delivering the intervention, and self-reported personal costs. The only significant difference between the intervention and those receiving usual care was greater physical improvement at nine weeks (p = 0.022) and one year (p = 0.024) reported in the intervention group. The intervention group also showed greater improvement at six months for the psychological domain of the WHOQol-bref questionnaire. The cost per participant in the intervention group was £746 (CI: -£432 to £1,924) greater than the usual care group. The cost difference, not including patient care, was £296 (95% CI: -£321 to £913) (Harrington et al, 2010). This indicates that patient care was the most significant driver of cost differences between both groups. van der Gaag and Brooks (2008) investigated the feasibility of undertaking a full economic appraisal of Connect, a voluntary sector service providing speech and language therapy and support services for individuals with aphasia and their families. Connect offers a 7-week community-based initiation programme called Starter’s, followed by a range of activities, including a women’s group, a group focused on improving communication skills, and a conversation group. The therapy groups aim to enhance communication skills and train individuals to teach volunteer service providers. Trained counsellors who personally experience aphasia also provided counselling services. The analysis was undertaken from a health care and societal perspective and was conducted over 18 months. These costs were reported in British pound sterling for the cost year 2002 (Table 3, Section 6.2). The Connect 7-week Starter’s Programme had a lower cost per session (£42) compared to NHS speech and language therapy (£62 per session). When considering the transportation costs for both programmes, the Connect programme was still less expensive at £55 per session compared to £74 (van der Gaag and Brooks, 2008). The average QALY gain for individuals receiving the intervention who were older, retired before experiencing a stroke, in stable relationships, and had good social support was 0.306. Individuals who remained working at the time of the stroke and expressed inadequate social support experienced a QALY loss of -0.37 (van der Gaag and Brooks, 2008). A pilot randomised controlled trial conducted by Bishop and colleagues (2014) aimed to test the efficacy of the Family Intervention: Telephone Tracking (FITT) intervention designed to assist stroke survivors and their caregivers during the first six months after stroke. FITT was delivered by individuals with prior clinical experience in family therapy or stroke (including a stroke rehabilitation nurse and therapists). During the six-month evaluation, an average of 19 telephone contacts were made with caregiver and survivor dyads. Participants in the intervention group received treatment as usual plus the FITT telephone contacts, while the control group received usual care only. Resource use was captured at three- and six-month follow-up for both groups. Resource use outcomes at six months indicated a trend of reduced therapy hours for the intervention group, suggesting the potential of FITT to reduce therapy time. 27% of survivors in the intervention group and 45% of survivors in the usual care group required rehospitalisation in the six months following stroke, which was suggestive but not statistically significant (χ2 (1, n = 49) = 1.57, p = 0.21). When considering rehospitalisation episodes, a large effect size for days re-hospitalised favoured FITT when analyses were undertaken using only those participants who experienced rehospitalisation, suggesting that when hospitalisation was necessary, hospital stays tended to be briefer for participants receiving the intervention (Bishop et al, 2014). Functional independence, depression and family functioning outcomes were assessed at three- and six-month follow-ups. At three months, caregivers in the FITT group had significant improvement in functional independence relative to caregivers in the usual care group, and this effect continued as a trend at six months. On average, caregivers in the FITT group reported improved activities of daily living scores, while those in the usual care groups worsened. Better family functioning was evidenced within caregiver/survivor dyads in the intervention group compared to usual care only. A non-significant positive change in depression outcome was also observed in the intervention group compared to usual care (Bishop et al, 2014). A randomised controlled trial conducted by Mant and colleagues (2000) aimed to evaluate the impact of family support provided by the Stroke Association in Oxfordshire on stroke survivors and their caregivers. A family support organiser (FSO) was assigned to stroke survivors who were allocated to family support. The FSO used their discretion to determine the nature and frequency of interaction depending on the challenges and needs expressed by the families. Regarding health care resource use, the intervention led to a lower percentage of stroke survivors in the intervention group compared to the usual care group seeing a physiotherapist after being discharged (44% vs 56%, p = 0.04). In addition, stroke survivors in the intervention group used the Stroke Association stroke clubs more often and relied less on speech and language therapy compared to those in the usual care group (Mant et al, 2000). Carers in the intervention group demonstrated better outcomes compared to those in the usual care group in energy (p = 0.02), mental health (p = 0.004), pain (p = 0.03), physical function (p = 0.025), and general health perception (p = 0.02). Quality of life was significantly higher (p = 0.01), and they reported greater satisfaction with their understanding of stroke compared to the usual care group (83% vs 71%; p = 0.04). However, this intervention did not provide any statistically significant impact on patient outcomes. There were no differences between the groups in terms of stroke survivors’ understanding of stroke, disability, handicap, quality of life, satisfaction with services, and knowledge about stroke. It is worth noting that the interviewer was not blinded to the allocation of participants in this study. Efforts were made in this study to explore the extent to which bias may have occurred, and it was found that there was a greater difference in the responses that were self-completed than those that were completed by the interviewer, which means that if bias had occurred, it did not favour the intervention. A randomised controlled trial conducted by Tilling and colleagues (2005) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an FSO service for stroke survivors and their caregivers. The service provided FSO telephone consultations or in-person home visits with the patient, their caregiver, or both. FSOs received training from the Stroke Association, with the primary objective of providing information, emotional support, and preventive guidance to stroke survivors and their caregivers for post-stroke management. This support was designed to aid the transition from hospital to home and involved facilitating access to local statutory and voluntary services. Resource use data was captured after one year. A greater number of stroke survivors in the intervention group consulted their GP (p=0.08, 95% CI: –1, 20), but fewer visited the hospital due to stroke related issues (p=0.009, 95% CI: –30, –4). However, there was no significant difference in GP or hospital visits between the groups. The trial indicated that FSOs were not effective in improving the everyday impact in stroke survivors when compared to usual care and had no difference on resource use (Tilling et al, 2005). At three-month follow-up, stroke survivors in the intervention group self-reported poorer impact of their stroke on daily life compared to those receiving usual care (6 [intervention] v 7 [usual care]; 95% CI: –1.7, +0.01; p = 0.05). A greater proportion of stroke survivors in the intervention group reported that stroke continued to adversely affect their lives compared to those receiving usual care. However, stroke survivors in the intervention group reported higher satisfaction with the information they received regarding their stroke recovery [76 (71%) intervention, 53 (49%) usual care; p = 0.001] and preventative advice [58 (54%) intervention, 46 (42%) usual care; p = 0.09] compared to the usual care group (Tilling et al, 2005). Within the intervention conducted by Tilling and colleagues (2005), the participants were aware of whether they were allocated to the intervention or usual outpatient care (not blinded). The authors of this study did not explore the extent to which this may have resulted in bias. #### 2.4.1 Bottom line results for interventions to support both informal carers and stroke survivors There is a lack of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to support informal carers and stroke survivors. However, two partial economic evaluations reported on comparative costs (Harrington et al, 2010; van der Gaag and Brookes, 2008) and three studies reported on resource use but did not provide cost comparisons (Mant et al, 2000; Tilling et al, 2005; Bishop et al, 2014). The community-based intervention that combined exercise and education, evaluated by Harrington and colleagues (2010), reported that the cost per patient of the intervention was greater than that of the control group (the mean intervention cost was £746 higher than the mean control group). The feasibility economic analysis of speech and language therapy and support services assessed by van der Gaag and Brooks (2008). The Connect 7-week Starter’s Programme had a lower cost per session (£42) compared to NHS speech and language therapy (£62 per session). Three randomised controlled trials to support both informal carers and stroke survivors did not include comparative cost data. A randomised controlled trial of a telehealth intervention to support families, assessed by Bishop and colleagues (2014), was associated with decreased health care utilisation. In the randomised controlled trial conducted by Mant and colleagues (2000) assessing family support, a lower proportion of stroke survivors in the intervention group had contact with a physiotherapist than the usual care group after discharge. In another randomised controlled trial assessing family support organisers conducted by Tilling and colleagues (2005), the findings reported no difference in resource use between the intervention and usual care. ## 3. DISCUSSION ### 3.1 Summary of the findings The primary focus of this rapid review was to identify evidence on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services that provide community-based and non-medical holistic support. This review also reported on the health and social care resource use and costs of life after stroke services. This review did not focus on rehabilitation. However, it is acknowledged that there is often an overlap in the boundary between life after stroke services and rehabilitation. This review did not include clinical interventions delivered in health care settings. However, non-clinical interventions delivered by health care professionals in clinical settings which may be relevant to life after stroke services were considered. This review has highlighted a need for more research evidence on the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive life-after-stroke services, particularly when they are intended to be delivered in a holistic multi-component format. However, this review has identified evidence on the cost-effectiveness and resource utilisation of specific interventions within these services that support both stroke survivors and carers. We identified four studies assessing interventions targeting stroke survivors, but did not identify any evidence supporting their cost-effectiveness. Two trial-based economic evaluations found that community-based provision of longer-term stroke care (Forster et al, 2015) and a community-based individual management programme (Orman et al, 2024) were not cost-effective relative to usual care. Moreover, a trial-based economic evaluation of a peer-befriending intervention for stroke survivors was found to be more costly and less effective than usual care alone (Flood et al, 2022). The fourth study, a randomised controlled trial of an arts and health-based intervention for stroke survivors reported comparable health care resource use between the intervention and usual care groups; however, some differences in resource use costs between groups included greater mean outpatient contacts and greater incidence of home care worker contacts in the usual care group (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019). Three studies that assessed training interventions for carers were identified in this rapid review. Two studies evaluated the same carer training intervention, which was a non-clinical intervention delivered by healthcare professionals in a hospital setting, while the stroke survivor was an in-patient. In one study, the intervention was delivered in a single unit (Kalra et al, 2004) and then went on to be delivered across multiple stroke units in an economic evaluation (Forster et al, 2013). Carer training was associated with a significant reduction in health and social care resource use at 12-months (Kalra et al, 2004), but was not found to be cost-effective in the separate study assessing the same intervention across multiple sites (Forster et al, 2013). In the third study of carer training, a carer adapted support intervention, which included a Carer Support Need Assessment Tool (CSNAT), was not cost-effective compared to usual care (Patchwood et al, 2021). Moreover, the mean costs for NHS resource use were marginally higher in the intervention group in this study. This review identified five studies assessing interventions targeting both stroke survivors and their informal carers, but none of these studies provided evidence relating to their cost-effectiveness. Two partial economic evaluations presented comparative costs; the first was a combined exercise and education intervention and reported higher mean delivery costs for the intervention group compared to the usual care group (Harrington et al., 2010). The second partial economic evaluation assessed speech and language therapy and support service intervention delivered by a third-sector voluntary organisation, and reported a lower cost per session for the intervention compared to an NHS-delivered speech and language therapy session (van der Gaag et al., 2008). The remaining three studies of interventions to support stroke survivors and their informal carers reported on resource utilisation, but did not provide any cost data as part of their analysis. A randomised controlled trial of a telehealth intervention to support families, assessed by Bishop and colleagues (2014), was associated with decreased health care utilisation. A randomised controlled trial of a family support intervention reported that a lower proportion of stroke survivors in the intervention group had physiotherapist contacts when compared to the usual care group following hospital discharge (Mant et al, 2000). In a separate randomised controlled trial assessing a family support organiser intervention, the results indicated no difference in resource use between the intervention and usual care groups (Tilling and colleagues, 2005). #### Rapid review findings in relation to NICE guidance This current rapid review aims to complement the NICE 2023 guidance (NG236) on adult stroke rehabilitation. However, this rapid review focuses on non-clinical life after stroke services and does not include studies of rehabilitation interventions delivered by health care professionals. We have also considered non-medical interventions delivered in hospital settings and interventions delivered by health care professionals. The rapid review findings are considered in relation to the NICE guidance in the following sections, which highlight community participation programmes, assessment of care and support needs, carer training, telerehabilitation, community-based communication and support groups, and care in the community and early hospital discharge. #### Community participation programmes NICE guidance indicates that community participation programmes that include peer support and leisure activities have been evidenced to be of value to people post-stroke. NICE also advocates that the involvement of family members in these programmes can be beneficial in improving quality of life and caregiver strain (NICE, 2023). This rapid review identified two economic evaluation studies and one randomised controlled trial assessing community participation programmes. The peer-befriending intervention assessed by Flood and colleagues was found to be more costly and less effective than usual care alone (Flood et al, 2022). There were some physical improvement and psychological outcomes within the community exercise and education scheme, assessed by Harrington and colleagues. However, the cost per patient of the intervention was greater than that of the usual care group (Harrington et al, 2010). The community-based arts and health group intervention assessed by Ellis-Hill and colleagues led to minimal QALY gain when compared to usual care, and there were no significant changes in health care resource use (Ellis-Hill et al, 2019). #### Assessment of care and support needs, and carer training NICE recommends appropriate assessment of care and support needs, which includes training in care to family members and carers who are willing and able to be involved in supporting the person after stroke. Family and carer training and support needs should be reviewed at a minimum during the person’s six-month and annual reviews (NICE, 2023). This rapid review identified three studies focussing on carer support needs and training. One study providing training to caregivers during stroke survivors’ rehabilitation was found to significantly reduce health care costs and caregiver burden as well as improve psychosocial outcomes for both caregivers and stroke survivors (Kalra et al, 2004). However, the economic evaluation assessing the same intervention across multiple sites (Forster et al, 2013) contradicted the results of Kalra and colleagues, as carer training in this study did not reduce health care utilisation and was also not found to be cost-effective. Forster and colleagues conclude that caregiver training delivered in the immediate post-stroke period may not be as effective as being delivered after discharge by community-based teams. The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool, which was assessed by Patchwood and colleagues, was not cost-effective and did not evidence any improvement in carer burden. Additionally, the mean costs for NHS resource use were marginally higher in the intervention group within this study (Patchwood et al, 2021). NICE (2023) recommends that long-term health and social support should include the provision of information so that people after a stroke, as well as their families and carers, can recognise the complications of the condition. This review identified two randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of Family Support Officers on stroke survivors and their carers. The study conducted by Mant and colleagues (2000), demonstrated better outcomes overall for carers with significantly higher quality of life and greater satisfaction with their understanding of stroke compared to the usual care group. In contrast, in the randomised controlled trial by Tilling and colleagues (2005), family support organisers were not effective in improving the everyday impact on stroke survivors when compared to usual care. Regarding resource use, a lower proportion of stroke survivors in the family support group had contact with a physiotherapist than the usual care group after discharge in the study conducted by Mant and colleagues (2000). However, family support organisers in the study conducted by Tilling and colleagues (2005), demonstrated no meaningful effect on GP visits and stroke related hospital visits. #### Telerehabilitation NICE (2023) recommends that post-stroke telerehabilitation be delivered as an alternative to face-to-face interaction with a health care professional. Components can include interventions, supervision, education, consultations and counselling. This review identified a randomised controlled trial evaluating the Telephone Tracking (FITT) intervention designed to assist stroke survivors and their caregivers during the first six months after stroke (Bishop et al, 2014). This intervention evidenced the potential to decrease health care utilisation and improve the quality of life for stroke survivors and their caregivers. #### Community-based communication and support groups NICE (2023) recommends encouraging people with communication difficulties to participate in community-based communication and support groups (such as those provided by voluntary organisations). This review identified one study evaluating a community-based speech and language therapy programme (van der Gaag & Brookes, 2008). Although the intervention was less costly per session compared to its NHS equivalent of speech and language therapy, the intervention evidenced mixed results on its effectiveness. Those who were retired prior to experiencing stroke evidenced greater quality of life than working-age individuals post-intervention. #### Care in the community and early hospital discharge Based on a NICE (2023) evidence review, the committee agreed that transfer of care from hospital to community, including early supported discharge, had clinically important benefits of reducing physical dependency, improved quality of life or had no negative impact on it, and reduced psychological distress. Qualitative evidence also found that people after stroke, their families, carers, and health care professionals saw early supported discharge as beneficial. This review found one intervention that evaluated a community-based individual management programme. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the programme could be cost-effective from a societal perspective at 24-month follow-up. Outcomes measured in QALYs for individuals in the intervention group improved between 12 and 24-month follow-up, increasing the likelihood of being cost-effective compared to usual care. (Orman et al, 2024). #### Assessments of psychological well-being and functional outcomes NICE (2023) guidance indicates that the assessment of psychological functioning should be included within the six-month annual reviews and the referral of stroke survivors to appropriate services for assessment and treatment when changes in psychological functioning are identified. This review identified one study assessing psychological well-being and functional outcomes for stroke survivors and carers (Forster et al, 2015). This study had low probabilities of cost-effectiveness from both health and societal perspectives and for both outcomes. ### 3.2 Strengths and limitations of the available evidence This review identified seven economic evaluations of life after stroke services, of which five were deemed to be of high quality. In addition, five randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating the impact of life after stroke services on health and social care resource use, three of which were deemed to be of high quality. Two of the identified randomised controlled trials reported comparative cost data. Many of these studies were feasibility studies that did not carry out a full evaluation or evaluated across small sample sizes, which limits confidence in the results. Very few of the identified studies evidenced the clinical effectiveness of life after-stroke interventions. The lack of clinical effectiveness in some studies hindered the ability to interpret cost-effectiveness analysis. Clinical effectiveness was typically assessed over short-term time horizons in most of the identified studies, with a follow-up period of less than a year. The NICE manual for conducting health technology evaluations states that a time horizon long enough to reflect all important differences in costs or outcomes should be used (NICE, 2022). Given the potential for long-term impacts of life after stroke services, short-time horizons may not provide us with a full understanding of health outcomes or resource utilisation and costs. This is evidenced in the economic evaluation conducted by Orman and colleagues (2024) in which significant improvements to QALY were found between 12 and 24-month follow-up. A shorter time-horizon would not have identified these gains. NICE recommends return to work support for stroke survivors. This includes identifying any issues that may impact work performance and conducting workplace visits in collaboration with employers to implement reasonable adjustments (NICE, 2023). However, this review did not identify any evidence on the cost-effectiveness of return-to-work support for stroke survivors. ### 3.3 Strengths and limitations of this rapid review This rapid review undertook thorough literature searches of evidence from January 2000 to August 2024, using a well-developed search strategy and robust methodology. We aimed to capture studies from comparative countries to allow the generalisability of findings to the UK health and care system. The searches aimed to identify evidence on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services, which support stroke survivors as they transition back to their daily lives after leaving the hospital, and the impact of these services on health and social care resource use. As this review focused on the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke services and the impact on health and social care resource use, there may be a considerable amount of evidence on non-medical interventions that are effective but have not been economically evaluated that were not considered for inclusion in this review. This review included interventions targeting not only stroke survivors but also carer/stroke survivor dyads and carers themselves, which gives a comprehensive overview of the available literature on life after stroke services. The search strategy of this review covered a wide time period; however, half of the included studies were published in the last 10 years (2014 onwards). The relevancy and generalisability of such dated findings mean that studies were conducted in significantly different settings than the present day in which policy and practice have changed. ### 3.4 Implications for policy and practice * While this review focused on evidence of cost-effectiveness and resource utilisation, which are helpful in the context of resource allocation for future roll-out of services, decisions relating to policy and practice should also consider the wider evidence base on clinical effectiveness and patient preferences going forward. * Community-based individual management programmes for post-stroke survivors may have the potential to be more cost-effective than usual care. * Life after stroke services may prevent the need for more costly and invasive treatments in the future. * The reduction in resource use for family support for stroke survivors and their carers may be associated with cost savings and reduced burden on the NHS. However, an increase in health care and social care use may also be appropriate due to better signposting or identification of peoples’ needs. * There is a need for adequate assessment of family and caregiver support needs to identify and address unmet needs. ### 3.5 Implications for future research * As stroke survivors have a diverse range of unmet needs, targeted, bespoke interventions may be the best way to provide holistic, non-medical life after stroke care. Research into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bespoke life after stroke services should be conducted to evidence this claim. * Many of the samples in the included studies lacked ethnic diversity, which does not reflect the diversity of the UK population. Stroke trials need strategies to achieve equity of access, given that a large portion of UK stroke admissions are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities (Office for National Statistics, 2021; Raleigh, 2023; Fluck et al, 2023). * To fully understand the cost-effectiveness of life after stroke interventions, future research should adopt longer study time horizons to allow for the assessment of potential long-term impacts. Exploration of outcomes over longer time horizons will enable researchers to gain valuable insights into any sustained benefits of interventions. The use of model-based economic analyses can facilitate longer time horizons, beyond that typically used in clinical trials, through the extrapolation of cost and outcomes data. * While the gold standard model of traditional cost-effectiveness analysis provides a valuable framework for assessing the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions, it may not capture the broader, softer benefits of life after stroke services, including interventions recommended by NICE. Qualitative interviews and focus groups can shed light on these softer outcomes, such as reduced social isolation, independence, and increased participation in daily activities. While this rapid review focused on quantitative data, future research may benefit from incorporating qualitative evidence to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the value of these interventions. ### 3.6 Economic considerations * The average cost to society per stroke survivor in the first-year post-stroke in the UK is £45,409. The key drivers of this cost are informal care and lost productivity costs (Stroke Association, 2020). Appropriate and timely post-stroke support for stroke survivors, their families and or caregivers could help alleviate some of this economic impact. * Stroke costs NHS Wales £220 million per year. When considering a wider societal economic cost, this figure rises to £1.6 billion per year. If current trends persist with no action taken, this figure is forecast to increase to £2.8 billion per annum by 2035 (Welsh Government, 2024b). ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## 5. RAPID REVIEW METHODS View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T2) Table 2: Eligibility criteria ### 5.2 Literature search A two-step approach was adopted to search the literature. Each search focused on terms to describe services following a stroke combined with different validated filters to limit the search numbers and to increase sensitivity. Search 1: limited the search by geographical area using a validated UK filter (Ayiku et al, 2021). Search 2: limited the search by study type using a combination of economic filters (CADTH, 2024a; CADTH, 2024b) and geographical area using an OECD filter (Ayiku et al, 2021). Searches were conducted within the period 2000 to August 2024 in the following databases: Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMCARE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Search strategies 1 and 2 conducted in Medline via Ovid are presented in Appendix 1. ### 5.3 Study selection process Three reviewers independently screened 50% each of the titles and abstracts using the Covidence review management software. Two reviewers independently screened 100% of the full text articles. Following the independent full text screening stage, discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the review team to come to an agreement on the final inclusions. ### 5.4 Data extraction Data extraction was based on the outlined eligibility criteria. For the economic evaluation studies, the review team extracted data on study country, type of intervention, study design, sample size, length of follow-up, type of economic evaluation, perspective of analysis, currency and cost year, details of discounting and sensitivity analysis, main costs and outcomes measures, and main health economics findings. For randomised control trials, the review team extracted data of study country, type of intervention, study design, sample size, participants and settings, intervention and comparator/control, outcomes that are relevant to the review question and main outcomes of the trial. ### 5.5 Quality appraisal Economic evaluation studies were assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations, and the randomised controlled trials were assessed using the JBI Checklist for randomised controlled trials (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017b). For the economic evaluation studies and the randomised controlled trials, the scoring algorithm employed by the authors awarded a single point to any element marked Y or NA while awarding no point to any element marked U or N. These points were totalled out of 11, and quality cut-offs were created to categorise the evidence into quality levels. The following cut-off scores for the economic evaluations are as follows: 9 to 11 – High Quality, 5 to 8 – Moderate, and 0 to 4 – Low Quality. The cut-off scores for randomised controlled trials were as follows: 11 to 13 – high quality, 5 to 10 – moderate, and 1 to 4 – low quality. ### 5.6 Synthesis Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was reported. ## 6. EVIDENCE ### 6.1 Search results and study selection After the removal of duplicates, the search identified 7,053 studies. Full texts (n=32) were reviewed, and twelve studies were included in this rapid review: economic evaluations (n = 7) and randomised controlled trials (n = 5). ### 6.2 Data extraction Data extraction for the economic evaluations and randomised controlled trials are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T3) Table 3: Evidence from included economic evaluations of life after stroke services (n = 7). View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T4) Table 4: Evidence from randomised controlled trials of life after stroke services with cost comparison (n = 2) View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T5) Table 5: Evidence from randomised controlled trials of life after stroke services (n = 3) ### 6.3 Quality appraisal View this table: [Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T6) Table 6: JBI Critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations View this table: [Table 7:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T7) Table 7: JBI critical appraisal checklist for randomised controlled trials ## 7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ### 7.1 Conflicts of interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest to report. ## 7.2 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Angela Contestabile, Katie Chapelle, Josie Hoskins, Heidi James, Robert Hall, Jonathan Hewitt, Llinos Wyn Parry, Lynn Preece, and Niki Turner for their time, expertise, and contributions during stakeholder meetings in guiding the focus of the review and interpretation of findings. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Gillen and Juliet Hounsome, Information Specialists at Cardiff University, for their expert contribution to the search strategy development and database searches. Finally, we would like to thank Catherine Lawrence for invaluable critical feedback on drafts of this review. ## 8 APPENDIX ## APPENDIX 1 Search strategy for Medline via Ovid View this table: [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/21/2024.11.21.24317699/T8) ## Footnotes * **Funding Statement:** The authors were funded for this work by the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health and Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government. ## Abbreviations ADL : Activities of Daily Living AQoL-4D : Assessment of Quality of Life-Four Dimensions AUD : Australian Dollars CCA : Cost-Consequence Analysis CDM : Chronic Disease Management CI : Confidence Interval CSNAT : Carer Support Needs Assessment CSRI : Client Service Receipt Inventory CUA : Cost Utility Analysis DISCS : Depression Intensity Scale Circles EQ-5D-5L : EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels FAD : Family Assessment Device FACQ : Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire FAI : Frenchay Activities Index FITT : Family Intervention: Telephone Tracking FSO : Family Support Organiser GDS : Geriatric Depression Scale GHQ-12 : General Health Questionnaire-12 HADS : Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale HISDS-III : Head Injury Semantic Differential Scale HRQoL : Health Related Quality of Life ICER : Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio IMP : Individual Management Program JBI : Joanna Briggs Institute LAS : Life After Stroke LOS : Length of Stay LSCTC : London Stroke Carer Training Course NEADL : Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living NICE : National Institute for Health and Care Excellence OECD : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCS : Perceived Criticism Scale QALY : Quality Adjusted Life Year RCT : Randomised Controlled Trial RNLI : Reintegration to Normal Living Index RSES : Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale SCC : Stroke Care Coordinator SD : Standard Deviation SE : Standard Error SIPSO : Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome SIS : Stroke Impact Scale SLT : Speech and Language Therapy SMF : Standard Medical Follow-up SRU : Stroke Rehabilitation Unit TIA : Transient Ischaemic Attack UC : Usual Care VAS : Visual Analogue Scale WEMWBS : Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale WTP : Willingness to Pay ## Glossary Economic evaluation : an assessment of the costs and effects of alternate healthcare interventions. The aim of an economic evaluation is to help decision makers maximise the level of health benefits relative to the finite resources available. Health and Social Care resource use or utilisation : refers to the use of healthcare resources by end users (patients) and intervention deliverers. This can take the form of contacts with health professionals across health and social care, medicines or healthcare consumables used. In economic evaluations, resource use is collected, and costs are assigned to them to identify the costs an intervention places on the healthcare system. Cost-effectiveness analysis : costs are compared with a treatment’s common therapeutic goal, expressed in terms of one main outcome measured in natural units (e.g., improvement in blood pressure or cholesterol level). These outcomes are typically condition-specific, meaning comparison within conditions is possible, but difficulty arises in comparing between conditions. Cost-utility analysis : a method of evaluation that measures health benefits in preference-based, non-monetary units such as Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). These units are helpful for economic evaluation as they are generic and can be applied across conditions, allowing for comparison between conditions. Full economic evaluation : is an economic evaluation that compares both the costs and effects of alternate healthcare interventions. The examples of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility above reflect full economic evaluations as they analyse both costs and outcomes of interventions. Partial economic evaluation : is an economic evaluation that does not compare both the costs and effects of alternate healthcare interventions. A common partial economic evaluation is a cost-analysis that presents the costs of interventions only, with no consideration of effects. Partial economic evaluations are sometimes conducted within or alongside randomised controlled trials. However, the conduct of partial economic evaluations are not limited to randomised controlled trial study designs, with alternatives including economic evaluations alongside natural experiments or economic modelling studies which often utilise sources of data from previous literature in addition to or instead of collecting primary data. Randomised controlled trial : a study in which a number of similar people are randomly assigned to 2 (or more) groups to test a specific drug, treatment or other intervention. One group (the intervention group) has the intervention being tested, the other (the comparison or control group) has an alternative intervention, a dummy intervention (placebo) or no intervention at all. The groups are followed up at set time periods to see how effective the experimental intervention was. Outcomes are measured at specific times and any difference in response between the groups is assessed statistically. Randomised controlled trials are the highest standard of research trials as their design helps to reduce biases that may impact the findings. Randomised controlled trials with partial economic evaluations : are a study type that follows the randomised controlled trial methodology. Randomised controlled trials with cost comparisons collect information on the costs associated with the interventions studied to allow for comparison across alternate interventions not just based on clinical effect but also costs. Within-trial economic evaluation : is a full economic evaluation of the costs and effects of healthcare interventions that are being studied as part of a clinical trial. The primary aim of clinical trials is typically a measurement of clinical effect of administering an intervention (e.g., change in blood pressure). These clinical effects of the intervention are then assessed together with the costs of the intervention in the economic evaluation. Cost-consequence analysis : Is a form of partial economic evaluation that presents the disaggregated costs and outcomes of an intervention. Statistical significance : a statistically significant result is one that is deemed to be down to a true effect rather than random chance. It is a way to determine if a relationship between variables is caused by something other than chance. * Received November 21, 2024. * Revision received November 21, 2024. * Accepted November 21, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## 4. REFERENCES 1. Ayiku L, Hudson T, Williams C, Levay P, Jacob C. (2021). The NICE OECD countries’ geographic search filters: Part 2-validation of the MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) filters. J Med Libr Assoc.1;109(4):583–589. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1224. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5195/jmla.2021.1224&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34858087&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 2. Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Tufanaru C, Leonardi-Bee J, Aromataris E, Munn Z. (2023). The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 21(3):494–506. [https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools](https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36727247&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 3. Bishop, D., Miller, I., Weiner, D., Guilmette, T., Mukand, J., Feldmann, E., Keitner, G., & Springate, B. (2014). Family Intervention: Telephone Tracking (FITT): a pilot stroke outcome study. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 21 *Suppl 1*, S63–S74. doi:10.1310/tsr21S1-S63 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1310/tsr21S1-S63&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24722045&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 4. CADTH. (2024a). Economic Evaluations & Models - Embase. In: CADTH Search Filters Database. Ottawa. [https://searchfilters.cadth.ca/link/15](https://searchfilters.cadth.ca/link/15). Accessed 2024-09-03. 5. CADTH. (2024b). Economic - Health Utilities / Quality of Life - Standard - Embase. In: CADTH Search Filters Database. Ottawa. [https://searchfilters.cadth.ca/link/18](https://searchfilters.cadth.ca/link/18). Accessed 2024-09-03. 6. Donkor, E. S. (2018). Stroke in the 21st Century: A Snapshot of the Burden, Epidemiology, and Quality of Life. Stroke Research and Treatment, 2018. doi:10.1155/2018/3238165 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2018/3238165&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30598741&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 7. Ellis-Hill, C., Thomas, S., Gracey, F., Lamont-Robinson, C., Cant, R., Marques, E. M. R., Thomas, P. W., Grant, M., Nunn, S., Paling, T., Thomas, C., Werson, A., Galvin, K. T., Reynolds, F., & Jenkinson, D. (2019). HeART of Stroke: randomised controlled, parallel-arm, feasibility study of a community-based arts and health intervention plus usual care compared with usual care to increase psychological well-being in people following a stroke. BMJ open, 9(3), e021098. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021098 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS8zL2UwMjEwOTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMS8yMDI0LjExLjIxLjI0MzE3Njk5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 8. Flood, C., Behn, N., Marshall, J., Simpson, A., Northcott, S., Thomas, S., Goldsmith, K., McVicker, S., Jofre-Nonet, M., & Hilari, K. (2022). A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) for post-stroke aphasia. Clinical Rehabilitation, 36(5), 683–692. doi:10.1177/02692155211063554 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/02692155211063554&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35108114&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 9. Fluck, D., Fry, C. H., Gulli, G., Affley, B., Robin, J., Kakar, P., Sharma, P., & Han, T. S. (2023). Adverse stroke outcomes amongst UK ethnic minorities: a multi-centre registry-based cohort study of acute stroke. Neurological sciences: official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 44(6), 2071– 2080. doi:10.1007/s10072-023-06640-z [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10072-023-06640-z&link_type=DOI) 10. Forster, A., Dickerson, J., Young, J., Patel, A., Kalra, L., Nixon, J., Smithard, D., Knapp, M., Holloway, I., Anwar, S., Farrin, A., & TRACS Trial Collaboration. (2013). A cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke: the TRACS trial. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 17(46), 1–216. doi:10.3310/hta17460 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3310/hta17370&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23972041&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000317180500001&link_type=ISI) 11. Forster, A., Young, J., Chapman, K., Nixon, J., Patel, A., Holloway, I., Mellish, K., Anwar, S., Breen, R., Knapp, M., Murray, J., & Farrin, A. (2015). Cluster randomized controlled trial: clinical and cost-effectiveness of a system of longer-term stroke care. Stroke, 46(8), 2212– 2219. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008585 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjQ2LzgvMjIxMiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzExLzIxLzIwMjQuMTEuMjEuMjQzMTc2OTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 12. Harrington, R., Taylor, G., Hollinghurst, S., Reed, M., Kay, H., & Wood, V. A. (2010). A community-based exercise and education scheme for stroke survivors: a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/0269215509347437 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0269215509347437&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20026571&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 13. Joanna Briggs Institute. (2017). Checklist for Economic Evaluations. [https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI\_Critical\_Appraisal-Checklist\_for\_Economic\_Evaluations2017\_0.pdf](https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI\_Critical\_Appraisal-Checklist\_for_Economic_Evaluations2017_0.pdf) 14. Kalra, L., Evans, A., Perez, I., Melbourn, A., Patel, A., Knapp, M., & Donaldson, N. (2004). Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328(7448), 1099. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1099 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMjgvNzQ0OC8xMDk5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTEvMjEvMjAyNC4xMS4yMS4yNDMxNzY5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 15. Lee, P. H., Yeh, T. T., Yen, H. Y., Hsu, W. L., Chiu, V. J. Y., & Lee, S. C. (2021). Impacts of stroke and cognitive impairment on activities of daily living in the Taiwan longitudinal study on aging. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91838-4 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-021-91838-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33414495&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 16. Magwood, G. S., Nichols, M., Jenkins, C., Logan, A., Qanungo, S., Zigbuo-Wenzler, E., & Ellis, C. (2020). Community-based interventions for stroke provided by nurses and community health workers: A review of the literature. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 52(4), 152–159. doi:10.1097/JNN.0000000000000512 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/JNN.0000000000000512&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32341258&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 17. Mant, J., Carter, J., Wade, D. T., & Winner, S. (2000). Family support for stroke: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 356(9232), 808–813. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02655-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02655-6&link_type=DOI) 18. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, October). (2023). Stroke rehabilitation in adults (NG236). [www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng236](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng236) 19. Office for National Statistics. (2021, 19 August). Mortality from leading causes of death by ethnic group, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. Office for National Statistics. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityfromleadingcausesofdeathbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2012to2019](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityfromleadingcausesofdeathbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2012to2019) 20. Orman, Z., Olaiya, M. T., Thrift, A. G., Cadilhac, D. A., Phan, T., Nelson, M. R., Ung, D., Srikanth, V. K., Bladin, C. F., Gerraty, R. P., Phillipos, J., & Kim, J. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of an individualised management program after stroke: A trial-based economic evaluation. Neuroepidemiology, 58(3), 156–165. doi:10.1159/000535638 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000535638&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38359812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 21. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D.. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (2021). BMJ, 372, n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmj.n71&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33782057&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 22. Patchwood, E., Woodward-Nutt, K., Rhodes, S. A., Batistatou, E., Camacho, E., Knowles, S., Darley, S., Grande, G., Ewing, G., & Bowen, A. (2021). Organising Support for Carers of Stroke Survivors (OSCARSS): a cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. BMJ Open, 11(1), e038777. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038777 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMS9lMDM4Nzc3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTEvMjEvMjAyNC4xMS4yMS4yNDMxNzY5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 23. Raleigh, V. (2023, 17 May). The health of people from ethnic minority groups in England. The Kings Fund. [https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/health-people-ethnic-minority-groups-england](https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/health-people-ethnic-minority-groups-england) 24. Stroke Association. (2023, May). National guidance for an Integrated Life after Stroke Support (ILASS) model. [https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/policy/ilass\_may\_2023\_-\_final\_version\_nhsesa\_v2.pdf](https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/policy/ilass\_may\_2023\_-\_final_version_nhsesa_v2.pdf) 25. Stroke Association. (2020, February). Current, future and avoidable costs of stroke in the UK. Technical Report. [https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/economic\_impact\_of\_stroke\_report\_final\_feb\_2020\_0.pdf](https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/economic\_impact\_of\_stroke\_report\_final_feb_2020_0.pdf) 26. Tilling, K., Coshall, C., McKevitt, C., Daneski, K., & Wolfe, C. (2005). A family support organiser for stroke patients and their carers: A randomised controlled trial. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 20(2), 85–91. doi:10.1159/000086511 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000086511&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15976500&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230678800003&link_type=ISI) 27. van der Gaag, A., & Brooks, R. (2008). Economic aspects of a therapy and support service for people with long-term stroke and aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(3), 233–244. doi:10.1080/13682820701560376 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13682820701560376&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18446573&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F21%2F2024.11.21.24317699.atom) 28. Welsh Government. (2024a, 22 September). New plan for Stroke care announced for Wales. [https://www.gov.wales/new-plan-stroke-care-announced-wales](https://www.gov.wales/new-plan-stroke-care-announced-wales) 29. Welsh Government. (2024b, 22 March). The national clinical guideline for stroke (WHC/ 2024/006) Letter to NHS organisations on the publication of ’The national clinical guideline for stroke’. [https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/pdf-versions/2024/3/5/1711108278/national-clinical-guideline-stroke-whc2024006.pdf](https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/pdf-versions/2024/3/5/1711108278/national-clinical-guideline-stroke-whc2024006.pdf)