Objectives: To identify barriers and facilitators to engagement when returning to, or participating in, leisure activity post-stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA). Design: Sequential explanatory, mixed methods study. Setting: 21 hospital sites across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Participants: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of first/recurrent stroke or TIA. Patients approaching end of life were excluded. Participants were recruited as in-patients or at first clinic appointment and a baseline questionnaire was completed. A 6-month follow-up questionnaire was sent to participants for self-completion. Open-text questions were asked about barriers and facilitators when returning to, or participating in, leisure activity. Responses were thematically analysed and explored by participant characteristics, including type of leisure activity undertaken. Characteristics also included measures of socioeconomic deprivation, mood, fatigue and disability. Results: 2000 participants returned a 6-month follow-up questionnaire (78% stroke, 22% TIA); 1045 participants responded to a question on barriers and 820 on facilitators. Twelve themes were identified and the proportion of responses were reported (%). Barriers: physical difficulties (69%), lower energy levels (17%), loss of independence (11%), psychological difficulties (10%), hidden disabilities (7%), and delay or lack of healthcare provision (3%). Facilitators: family support (35%), healthcare support (27%), well-being and fitness (22%), friendship support (20%), self-management (19%), and returning to normality (9%). ‘Physical difficulties’ was the most reported barrier across all participant characteristics and activity types. Family support was the most reported facilitator except for those with greater disability, where it was healthcare support and those without fatigue where it was well-being and exercise. Conclusions: Physical difficulties and lack of energy are problematic for stroke and TIA survivors who want to return to or participate in leisure activity. Healthcare support alone cannot overcome all practical and emotional issues related to leisure activity engagement. Family support and improving well-being are important facilitators and future research should explore these mechanisms further.

Objective: To examine changes in leisure participation following stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and explore its relationship to modifiable and non-modifiable participant characteristics. Design: An observational study design with self-report questionnaires collected at two time points (baseline and 6-months). Setting: The study was conducted across 21 hospital sites in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Participants: Participants were aged 18+ and had experienced a first or recurrent stroke or TIA and had a post-stroke/TIA modified Rankin score (mRS) of ≤3. Procedure: Research practitioners at each site approached potential participants. Individuals who agreed to participate completed a baseline questionnaire whilst an inpatient or at a first post-stroke/TIA clinic appointment. A follow-up questionnaire was posted to participants with a freepost return envelope. Two questionnaires were developed that collected demographic information, pre-stroke/TIA mRS, social circumstances (e.g., employment situation) and incorporated the shortened Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire (sNLQ). Results: The study recruited eligible participants (N = 3295); 2000 participants returned questionnaires at follow-up. Data showed three participant variables were significant predictors of engagement in leisure activities post-stroke/TIA: age, sex, and deprivation decile. There was an overall decline in the number and variety of leisure activities, with an average loss of 2.2 activities following stroke/TIA. Only one activity, “exercise/fitness” saw an increase in engagement from baseline to follow-up; watching TV remained stable, whilst participation in all other activities reduced between 10% and 40% with an average activity engagement reduction of 22%. Conclusions: Some groups experienced a greater reduction in activities than others—notably older participants, female participants, and those living in a low socioeconomic area. Registration: researchregistry4607. Strengths and limitations of this study: 1. This is the largest-ever study to survey life and leisure activity engagement following stroke/TIA. 2. Survey responses were self-reported retrospectively and, therefore, may have been misreported, or misremembered. 3. Despite the large cohort, there were few participants, and so respondents, from ethnic minority groups.

Background Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors in the acute phase, and it often presents as a new problem after stroke or, if pre-existing, worsens significantly, adding to the disability and helplessness caused by neurological deficits. New management programmes after stroke are needed to address urinary incontinence early and effectively. Objective The Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke (ICONS)-II trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for urinary incontinence after stroke in hospital. Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, individual-patient-randomised (1 : 1), parallel-group trial with an internal pilot. Setting Eighteen NHS stroke services with stroke units took part. Participants Participants were adult men and women with acute stroke and urinary incontinence, including those with cognitive impairment. Intervention Participants were randomised to the intervention, a systematic voiding programme, or to usual care. The systematic voiding programme comprised assessment, behavioural interventions (bladder training or prompted voiding) and review. The assessment included evaluation of the need for and possible removal of an indwelling urinary catheter. The intervention began within 24 hours of recruitment and continued until discharge from the stroke unit. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was severity of urinary incontinence (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire) at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were taken at 3 and 6 months after randomisation and on discharge from the stroke unit. They included severity of urinary incontinence (at discharge and at 6 months), urinary symptoms, number of urinary tract infections, number of days indwelling urinary catheter was in situ, functional independence, quality of life, falls, mortality rate and costs. The trial statistician remained blinded until clinical effectiveness analysis was complete. Results The planned sample size was 1024 participants, with 512 allocated to each of the intervention and the usual-care groups. The internal pilot did not meet the target for recruitment and was extended to March 2020, with changes made to address low recruitment. The trial was paused in March 2020 because of COVID-19, and was later stopped, at which point 157 participants had been randomised (intervention, n = 79; usual care, n = 78). There were major issues with attrition, with 45% of the primary outcome data missing: 56% of the intervention group data and 35% of the usual-care group data. In terms of the primary outcome, patients allocated to the intervention group had a lower score for severity of urinary incontinence (higher scores indicate greater severity in urinary incontinence) than those allocated to the usual-care group, with means (standard deviations) of 8.1 (7.4) and 9.1 (7.8), respectively. Limitations The trial was unable to recruit sufficient participants and had very high attrition, which resulted in seriously underpowered results. Conclusions The internal pilot did not meet its target for recruitment and, despite recruitment subsequently being more promising, it was concluded that the trial was not feasible owing to the combined problems of poor recruitment, poor retention and COVID-19. The intervention group had a slightly lower score for severity of urinary incontinence at 3 months post randomisation, but this result should be interpreted with caution. Future work Further studies to assess the effectiveness of an intervention starting in or continuing into the community are required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN14005026. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Psychological problems post-stroke are common and debilitating, yet insufficient evidence-based psychological support exists for stroke survivors, either in stroke or general mental health services. Many stroke survivors with significant needs remain unsupported. To address this problem, we need pathways to identify, treat and manage psychological difficulties after stroke. The Accelerating Delivery of Psychological Therapies after Stroke (ADOPTS) study aimed to explore the feasibility of collaboratively developing, implementing and evaluating intervention packages (IPs) to facilitate access to, and increase the provision of, psychological support post-stroke. Methods: Stakeholder groups were formed across four sites in north-west England, comprising stroke and psychological services, to collaboratively develop site-specific IPs incorporating a psychological care pathway, staff training, a staff manual for stroke-specific psychological support and supervision. A feasibility stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial recruited patients admitted with stroke during the usual care (pre-implementation of the IP) and intervention (post-implementation) periods. The feasibility of IP implementation and their potential usefulness were evaluated through assessing wellbeing and the support received, and through a process evaluation incorporating interviews with staff, patients and carers. Feasibility evaluation included the recruitment rate and attrition rate; exploratory analysis (mixed-effects linear or logistic regression models) was used to assess the ‘promise’ of the intervention in achieving psychological distress outcomes (mood (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7)), assessed using validated measures at 6 weeks and 6 months. Results: IPs were collaboratively developed at each site but implementation took longer than the per-study-protocol duration of three months. Nineteen training sessions (152 attendees) were delivered for nursing, therapy, NHS Talking Therapies and voluntary staff. Nursing staff were underrepresented due to difficulties with releasing staff. Manuals were developed for each site, incorporating a mood screening and referral algorithm, but these were not finalised at one site. Stroke and NHS Talking Therapies champions were identified in each site to facilitate cross-service staff supervision. A total of 270 patients were recruited over 14 months (133 usual care, 137 intervention), with 227 and 198 at 6 weeks and 6 months, respectively. Stroke staff found the training, manual and pathway helpful, and reported greater confidence in managing and referring psychological issues. NHS Talking Therapies staff found the training useful for adapting their therapy. However, the intervention took longer to implement in all sites, requiring an additional time period to be added to the stepped-wedge design. Conclusions: It is feasible to collaboratively develop and implement IPs for post-stroke psychological support. However, an alternative to the stepped-wedge design used here would be more appropriate for a future study. This study was registered in ISRCTN—the UK’s Clinical Study Registry (trial registration: ISRCTN12868810, registration date: 4 February 2016).