Search

Additional file 1: eTable 1. Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2. eTable 2. Characteristics of healthcare provider participants.

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a major health and socioeconomic problem internationally. The expansive nature of injuries results in a heterogeneous population. The degree and type of long-term impacts following TBI and improvement following injury are highly variable. The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (ePROMs) could help identify residual impacts of TBI and support patient management and care. The Patient Reported Outcomes Research in Trauma study is a qualitative study exploring the long-term symptoms and impacts that are experienced by those with TBI and the potential utility of an ePROM platform to collect real-time information on patient symptoms and quality of life to inform treatment and identify support needs. Methods and analysis Semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews will be conducted with approximately 30–40 individuals recruited from five groups: (1) people with TBI; (2) carers and relatives of individuals with TBI; (3) TBI healthcare professionals; (4) researchers and (5) third sector staff members and volunteers working with those with TBI. Data will be analysed using directed thematic analysis employing an iterative coding frame that will be modified as analysis progresses. Intercoder triangulation will be employed to enhance credibility. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the West Midlands—Black Country Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 18/WM/0033). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals, social media (@CPROR_UoB; http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpror) and the National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre.

Plain English summary What is the problem and why is this important? Mini-strokes are similar to full strokes, but symptoms last less than 24 h. Many people (up to 70%) have long-term problems after a mini-stroke, such as anxiety; depression; problems with brain functioning (like memory loss); and fatigue (feeling tired). However, the current healthcare pathway only focuses on preventing another stroke and care for other long-term problems is not routinely given. Without proper treatment, people with long-term problems after a mini-stroke could have worse quality of life and may find it difficult to return to work and their social activities. What is the aim of the research? We wanted to understand the research priorities of patients, health care professionals and key stakeholders relating to the long-term impact of mini-stroke. How did we address the problem? We invited patients, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders to attend a meeting. At the meeting people discussed the issues relating to the long-term impact of mini-stroke and came to an agreement on their research priorities. There were three stages: (1) people wrote down their individual research suggestions; (2) in smaller groups people came to an agreement on what their top research questions were; and (3) the whole group agreed final research priorities. What did we find? Eleven people attended who were representatives for patients, GPs, stroke consultants, stroke nurses, psychologists, the Stroke Association (charity) and stroke researchers, The group agreed on eleven research questions which they felt were the most important to improve health and well-being for people who have had a mini-stroke. The eleven research questions encompass a range of categories, including: understanding the existing care patients receive (according to diagnosis and geographical location); exploring what optimal care post-TIA/minor stroke should comprise (identifying and treating impairments, information giving and support groups) and how that care should be delivered (clinical setting and follow-up pathway); impact on family members; and education/training for health care professionals. Abstract Background Clinical management after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke focuses on stroke prevention. However, evidence demonstrates that many patients experience ongoing residual impairments. Residual impairments post-TIA and minor stroke may affect patients’ quality of life and return to work or social activities. Research priorities of patients, health care professionals and key stakeholders relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke are unknown. Methods Our objective was to establish the top shared research priorities relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke through stakeholder-centred consensus. A one-day priority setting consensus meeting took place with representatives from different stakeholder groups in October 2016 (Birmingham, UK). Nominal group technique was used to establish research priorities. This involved three stages: (i) gathering research priorities from individual stakeholders; (ii) interim prioritisation in three subgroups; and (iii) final priority setting. Results The priority setting consensus meeting was attended by 11 stakeholders. The individual stakeholders identified 34 different research priorities. During the interim prioritisation exercise, the three subgroups generated 24 unique research priorities which were discussed as a whole group. Following the final consensus discussion, 11 shared research priorities were unanimously agreed. The 11 research questions encompass a range of categories, including: understanding the existing care patients receive (according to diagnosis and geographical location); exploring what optimal care post-TIA/minor stroke should comprise (identifying and treating impairments, information giving and support groups) and how that care should be delivered (clinical setting and follow-up pathway); impact on family members; and education/training for health care professionals. Conclusions Eleven different research priorities were established through stakeholder-centred consensus. These research questions could usefully inform the research agenda and policy decisions for TIA and minor stroke. Inclusion of stakeholders in setting research priorities is important to increase the relevance of research and reduce research waste.

IntroductionPeople who experience transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have limited follow-up despite rapid specialist review in hospital. This means they often have unmet needs and feel abandoned following discharge. Care needs after TIA/minor stroke include information provision (diagnosis and stroke risk), stroke prevention (medication and lifestyle change) and holistic care (residual problems and return to work or usual activities). This protocol describes a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention to support people after TIA/minor stroke. The study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of (1) the intervention and (2) the trial procedures for a future randomised controlled trial of this intervention.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, randomised (1:1) feasibility study with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Sixty participants will be recruited from TIA clinics or stroke wards at three hospital sites (England). Intervention arm participants will be offered a nurse or allied health professional-led follow-up appointment 4 weeks after TIA/minor stroke. The multifaceted intervention includes: a needs checklist, action plan, resources to support management of needs, a general practitioner letter and training to deliver the intervention. Control arm participants will receive usual care. Follow-up will be self-completed questionnaires (12 weeks and 24 weeks) and a clinic appointment (24 weeks). Follow-up questionnaires will measure anxiety, depression, fatigue, health related quality of life, self-efficacy and medication adherence. The clinic appointment will collect body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol and medication. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will include quantitative process variables (such as recruitment and questionnaire response rates), structured observations of study processes, and interviews with a subsample of participants and clinical staff.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion was gained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee (REC) 1 (23 February 2021, REC reference: 21/WA/0036). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. A lay summary and dissemination strategy will be codesigned with consumers. The lay summary and journal publication will be distributed on social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN39864003.

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health problem; worldwide, >60 million people experience a TBI each year and incidence is rising. TBI has been proposed as an independent risk factor for stroke. Aims To investigate the association between TBI and stroke risk. Summary of review We undertook a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library from inception to 4th December 2020. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool hazard ratios (HR) for studies which reported stroke risk post-TBI compared to controls. Searches identified 10,501 records; 58 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 met the inclusion criteria. The review included a large sample size of 2,606,379 participants from four countries. Six studies included a non-TBI control group, all found TBI patients had significantly increased risk of stroke compared to controls (pooled HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.46-2.37). Findings suggest stroke risk may be highest in the first four months post-TBI, but remains significant up to five years post-TBI. TBI appears to be associated with increased stroke risk regardless of severity or subtype of TBI. There was some evidence to suggest an association between reduced stroke risk post-TBI and Vitamin K antagonists and statins, but increased stroke risk with certain classes of antidepressants. Conclusion TBI is an independent risk factor for stroke, regardless of TBI severity or type. Post-TBI review and management of risk factors for stroke may be warranted., This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre (SRMRC). GMT is funded by the NIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship programme (PDF-2017-10-047) and NIHR SRMRC. MC receives funding from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR SRMRC at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Health Data Research UK, Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation, and Macmillan Cancer Support. OLA receives funding from the Health Foundation an independent charity working to improve the quality of healthcare in the UK. He also receives funding from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre. TM is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the authors are not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Health Foundation or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Background National guidelines recommend patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) should be seen by a specialist within 24 h. However, people with suspected TIA often present to non-specialised services, particularly primary care. Therefore, general practitioners (GPs) have a crucial role in recognition and urgent referral of people with suspected TIA. This study aims to explore the role of GPs in the initial management of suspected TIA in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods One-to-one, semi-structured interviews with GPs, TIA clinic staff and patients with suspected TIA from two sites in the UK: Cambridge and Birmingham. Thematic analysis was undertaken to explore views on the role of the GP in managing suspected TIA. Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke patients (n = 12), GPs (n = 9) and TIA clinic hospital staff (n = 9) from two hospitals and nine GP practices in surrounding areas. Results Three overarching themes were identified: (1) multiple management pathways for suspected TIA; (2) uncertainty regarding suspected TIA as an emergency or routine situation; and (3) influences on the urgency of GP management. Conclusions Guidelines on the primary care management of TIA describe only a small proportion of the factors which influence GP management and referral of suspected TIA. Efforts to improve treatment, appropriate referral and patient experience should use a real rather than idealised model of the GP role in managing suspected TIA. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0963-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.