Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sacchett, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sacchett, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Does the Volunteer Stroke Scheme improve social outcome after stroke? A response to Geddes and Chamberlain

Jane Marshall

Department of Clinical Communication Studies, City University, London

Carol Sacchett

Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, Kent

A recent study by Geddes and Chamberlain (Clin Rehabil 1994; 8: 116-26) claimed that the Volunteer Stroke Scheme was particularly effective in bringing about 'social recovery' in patients with communication problems after stroke. This response argues that Geddes and Chamberlain present very little evidence to support this claim. Failings are identified in the group design, the selection of evaluation measures and the analysis of results. It is also argued that, in the current market climate of the National Health Service, such inflated claims from evaluation studies could seriously mislead purchasers. In conclusion, alternative methodologies for this type of evaluation are suggested.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 10, No. 2, 104-109 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559601000203
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




Advertisement