Comparisons between group- and individual-based interventions to support recovery from stroke and ischaemic heart disease in the community: a scoping review

Purpose To map and summarise available literature on the effectiveness or other benefits of group- and individual-based interventions provided for adults living with stroke or ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in the community. Material and Methods The review was conducted based on JBI methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Articles were retrieved from: Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL from 2002–2022. Extracted data from eligible studies included type of health outcomes (e.g., impairments), retention and adherence, social connectedness, and the costs associated with group- and individual-based interventions. Results After screening, five articles (representing 4 unique studies) comparing a group- and individual-based intervention were included (total sample size n = 87). Three types of interventions were assessed: exercise (3/5), communication (1/5), and occupational therapy (1/5). Effectiveness of group- and individual-based interventions at improving health outcomes (i.e. physical ability, communication, motivation, and quality of life) is unclear. Currently there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice. Conclusions There is limited evidence comparing interventions delivered in a group and individual modality for adults living with stroke or IHD. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if mode of delivery is equivalent or more cost effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Rehabilitation interventions can be offered individually or in group settings with clinicians choosing the most appropriate modality. Both group- and individual-based interventions have advantages and disadvantages, with clinical, practical, and economic factors as important considerations when deciding between the two modalities. Based on this scoping review, the authors conclude that there is currently insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in deciding which mod