Background & objectives: There has been more than 100 per cent increase in incidence of stroke in low- and middle-income countries including India from 1970-1979 to 2000-2008. Lack of reliable reporting mechanisms, heterogeneity in methodology, study population, and small sample size in existing epidemiological studies, make an accurate estimation of stroke burden in India challenging. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiologic studies on stroke conducted in India to document the magnitude of stroke. Methods: All population-based, cross-sectional studies and cohort studies from India which reported the stroke incidence rate or cumulative stroke incidence and/or the prevalence of stroke in participants from any age group were included. Electronic databases (Ovid, PubMed, Medline, Embase and IndMED) were searched and studies published during 1960 to 2015 were included. A total of 3079 independent titles were identified for screening, of which 10 population-based cross-sectional studies were considered eligible for inclusion. Given the heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not carried out. Results: The cumulative incidence of stroke ranged from 105 to 152/100,000 persons per year, and the crude prevalence of stroke ranged from 44.29 to 559/100,000 persons in different parts of the country during the past decade. These values were higher than those of high-income countries. Interpretation & conclusions: A paucity of good-quality epidemiological studies on stroke in India emphasizes the need for a coordinated effort at both the State and national level to study the burden of stroke in India. Future investment in the population-based epidemiological studies on stroke would lead to better preventive measures against stroke and better rehabilitation measures for stroke-related disabilities in the country.

People with disabilities may be disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We synthesize the literature on broader health and social impacts on people with disabilities arising from lockdown-related measures. Methods: Scoping review with thematic analysis. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three pre-print servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers addressing lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Snowballing searches and experts’ consultation also occurred. Two independent reviewers took eligibility decisions and performed data extractions. Results: Out of 1026 unique references, 85 addressed lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Ten primary and two central themes were identified: (1) Disrupted access to healthcare (other than for COVID-19); (2) Reduced physical activity leading to health and functional decline; (3) From physical distance and inactivity to social isolation and loneliness; (4) Disruption of personal assistance and community support networks; (5) Children with disabilities disproportionally affected by school closures; (6) Psychological consequences of disrupted routines, activities, and support; (7) Family and informal caregiver burden and stress; (8) Risks of maltreatment, violence, and self-harm; (9) Reduced employment and/or income exacerbating disparities; and (10) Digital divide in access to health, education, and support services. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and structural, pre-pandemic disparities were the central themes. Conclusions: Lockdown-related measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic can disproportionally affect people with disabilities with broader impact on their health and social grounds. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and pre-pandemic disparities created structural disadvantages, exacerbated during the pandemic. Both structural disparities and their pandemic ramifications require the development and implementation of disability-inclusive public health and policy measures.

To assess the rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors in Chennai, India, after discharge from the hospital. Mixed-methods research design. Home-based. Stroke survivors (n=50; mean age ± SD, 58.9±10.5y) and primary caregivers of these stroke survivors (n=50; mean age ± SD, 43.1±11.8y) took part in the quantitative survey. A subsample of stroke survivors (n=12), primary caregivers (n=10), and health care professionals (n=8) took part in the qualitative in-depth interviews. Not applicable. Rehabilitation needs after hospital discharge. About 82% of the needs expressed by stroke survivors and 92% of the needs expressed by caregivers indicated that they had a substantial need for information. The proportion of financial needs reported by the stroke survivors and the caregivers was 70% and 75%, respectively. The qualitative data revealed major gaps in access to stroke rehabilitation services. Service providers identified availability and affordability of services as key problems. Stroke survivors and their caregivers identified lack of information about stroke as major barriers to accessibility of stroke rehabilitation services. Caregivers expressed a tremendous need for support to manage family dynamics. The study highlights a considerable unmet need for poststroke rehabilitation services. Given the lack of rehabilitation resources in India, developing an accessible, innovative, patient-centered, culturally sensitive rehabilitation intervention is of public health importance. It is crucial for low- and middle-income countries like India to develop technology-driven stroke rehabilitation strategies to meet the growing rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors.

Data shows that people with disability are more disadvantaged in accessing health, education and employment opportunities compared to people without a disability. There is a lack of credible documented evidence on health care access and barriers to access from India. The South India Disability Evidence (SIDE) Study was undertaken to understand the health needs of people with disabilities, and barriers to accessing health services. The study was conducted in one district each in two States (Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka) in 2012. Appropriate age and sex-matched people without a disability were recruited to compare with people with disability who were identified through a population-based survey and available government disability records by trained key informants. These people were then examined by a medical team to confirm the diagnosis. Investigators administered questionnaire schedules to people with and without a disability to harness information on employment and health service access, utilization and barriers. A total of 839 people with disabilities and 1153 age and sex matched people without a disability, aged 18 years or more were included. People with disability had significantly lower employment rates. On univariate analysis, people with disability (18.4%) needed to visit a hospital significantly more often in the preceding year compared to people without a disability (8.8%) (X 2- 40.0562; P < =0.001). However adjusted odds ratios did not show a statistically significant difference. Significant differences were also observed with respect to past hospitalization. People with disabilities had 4.6 times higher risk of suffering from diabetes and 5.8 times higher risk of suffering from depression compared to people without a disability and the risk was significantly higher in males compared to females with disability. People with disability faced significantly more barriers to accessing health services compared to people without a disability. Barriers included ignorance regarding availability of services, costs of services and transportation. This study highlights the challenges that people with disability face in accessing health-care and employment opportunities. The study findings have public health implications and should be used for planning need-based appropriate strategies to improve health care access for people with disabilities.

This study aims to synthesize the literature on any disproportionate health risks or consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Scoping review with a descriptive thematic analysis was carried out. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three preprint servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers. Snowballing searches and expert’ consultations also took place. Two independent reviewers were used for the screenings and data extractions. Of 1027 references, 58 were included, 15 of which were empirical articles. The thematic analysis showed that: (1) People with disabilities living in residential or long-term care facilities were more likely to have greater infection rates; (2) Intersecting mediators of greater infection risks were multiple (e.g., lack of accessible information); (3) People with disabilities often face greater health problems when infected; and (4) Unethical disadvantages in the rationing of lifesaving and critical care can be experienced by people with disabilities. Conclusions: Beyond any health-related vulnerabilities (e.g., comorbidity rates), multiple yet modifiable environmental factors can provide disproportionate health risks and consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Public health and policy measures must prevent or reduce modifiable environmental risks.

Objectives (1) To identify operational issues encountered by study participants in using the ‘Care for Stroke’ intervention; (2) to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Design Mixed-methods research design. Setting Participant's home. Participants were selected from a tertiary hospital in Chennai, South India. Participants Sixty stroke survivors treated and discharged from the hospital, and their caregivers. Intervention ‘Care for Stroke’ is a smartphone-enabled, educational intervention for management of physical disabilities following stroke. It is delivered through a web-based, smartphone-enabled application. It includes inputs from stroke rehabilitation experts in a digitised format. Methods Evaluation of the intervention was completed in two phases. In the first phase, the preliminary intervention was field-tested with 30 stroke survivors for 2 weeks. In the second phase, the finalised intervention was provided to a further 30 stroke survivors to be used in their homes with support from their carers for 4 weeks. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcomes: (1) operational difficulties in using the intervention; (2) feasibility and acceptability of the intervention in an Indian setting. Disability and dependency were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results Field-testing identified operational difficulties related to connectivity, video-streaming, picture clarity, quality of videos, and functionality of the application. The intervention was reviewed, revised and finalised before pilot-testing. Findings from the pilot-testing showed that the ‘Care for Stroke’ intervention was feasible and acceptable. Over 90% (n=27) of the study participants felt that the intervention was relevant, comprehensible and useful. Over 96% (n=29) of the stroke survivors and all the caregivers (100%, n=30) rated the intervention as excellent and very useful. These findings were supported by qualitative interviews. Conclusions Evaluation indicated that the ‘Care for Stroke’ intervention was feasible and acceptable in an Indian context. An assessment of effectiveness is now warranted.