BackgroundThe uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals.MethodsA qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol.ResultsThirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care).ConclusionAlthough there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately.

Cognitive impairment after stroke has a direct impact on daily functioning and quality of life (QoL) of patients and is associated with higher mortality and healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a computer-based brain training programme on cognitive functioning, QoL and self-efficacy compared to a control condition in stroke patients. Stroke patients with self-perceived cognitive impairment were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of an 8-week brain training programme (Lumosity Inc.®). The control group received general information about the brain weekly. Assessments consisted of a set of neuropsychological tests and questionnaires. In addition, adherence with trained computer tasks was recorded. No effect of the training was found on cognitive functioning, QoL or self-efficacy when compared to the control condition, except for very limited effects on working memory and speed. This study found very limited effects on neuropsychological tests that were closely related to trained computer tasks, but no transfers to other tests or self-perceived cognitive failures, QoL or self-efficacy. These findings warrant the need for further research into the value of computer-based brain training to improve cognitive functioning in the chronic phase after stroke.

Two years after onset, in particular, the parent-reported fatigue after NTBI was considerable. Moreover, older children and children from a single-parent household were found to have higher fatigue levels.