Study designs of evaluations included in the review
The inclusion criteria for study design were not specified. The included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials and uncontrolled studies.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies that measured the effect of OT treatment were included. Only studies where the treatment was designated as OT treatment, had been administered by an occupational therapist, or where the article was written by an occupational therapist, were included. The following types of studies were excluded: treatments usually regarded as OT (e.g. cognitive-perceptual training), but not regarded as such by the reviewers; treatments administered by professionals other than occupational therapists; treatments administered by occupational therapists that are not usually regarded as OT with effects not reported in functional terms (e.g. fabrication and application of ankle-foot orthoses); OT delivered in combination with other rehabilitation treatments; and interventions delivered to participants post-stroke, who had other concomitant conditions.
Participants included in the review
Participants receiving OT who had had a stroke were included. Of the 895 participants who completed the trials, 411 had a left cerebrovascular accident and 425 had a right cerebrovascular accident. The mean age ranged from 63.1 to 76.0 years (overall mean 70.3 years). In 4 studies, the participants were 12 months or greater post-stroke, while in 10 studies they were 6 months or less post-stroke. In one study, the participants were of mixed chronicity.
Outcomes assessed in the review
The inclusion criteria were not specified for outcomes. The outcome measures in the included studies were classified into the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICIDH-2) categories of participation (role), activity (instrumental activities of daily living, and basic activities of daily living), and structural and functional integrity (mental and physical abilities and capacities).
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
Two reviewers independently selected the papers and any disagreements were resolved through discussion.