Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review
Hardeep Singh1,2,3, Natasha Benn2,3, Agnes Fung4
1Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers.
Materials And Methods:
A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.
Results:
Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term 'co-design.' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.
Conclusions:
Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.
