Table 1 Summary of study characteristics, quality measures and outcomes

Olney et al. 2006 [31]

Sample size:

N = 74

IG: 38, CG: 36

Gender:

M: 45 (62.5%), F: 27 (37.5%)

Mean (SD) age in years:

IG: 63.5 (12)

CG: 65.8 (11.6)

Follow-up times: 10 weeks, 6 months & 1 year

Fidelity score:

3/16 (19%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 5

Unclear risk: 2

High risk: 3

10-week supervised strengthening and conditioning programme

1-week supervised exercise followed by a 9-week unsupervised home exercise programme

Six-minute walking speed (function)

Human Activity Profile (adjusted activity score)

At 12 months, there was a significant increase in PA in IG compared to CG (p < 0.05)

Damush et al. 2011 [32]

Sample size: N = 63

IG: 30, CG: 33

Gender:

M: 62 (98%); F: 1 (2%)

Mean (SD) age in years:

IG: 67.3 (12.4)

CG: 64 (8.4)

Follow-up times:

Baseline, 3 months and 6 months

Fidelity score:

6/16 (38%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 4

Unclear: 3

High risk: 1

12-week stroke self-management program focusing on increasing self-efficacy

Stroke-related education materials & pamphlets on secondary stroke prevention. 6 bi-weekly telephone calls for 12 wks, during which participants were asked how they were doing that day

Stroke-specific quality of life, assessed using the SSQOL (quality of life)

Frequency of exercise behaviour within the past week measured using validated scale

At 3 and 6 months, PA increased in IG compared to CG (no significant difference)

Ludwig et al. 2016 [33]

Sample size: N = 20

Group specific information unavailable

Gender: information unavailable

Mean age in years: 51.5

SD unavailable

Follow-up times:

4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after rehabilitation

Fidelity score:

9/16 (56%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 2

Unclear risk: 4

High risk: 2

A theory-based training session delivered after a course of Nordic walking

Control group participants were invited to a single face-to-face training session based on positive gain and a power point presentation on the health benefits of physical activity

Walking-training frequency and duration of each set per week, using questionnaire (PA behaviour)

Walking-training frequency and duration of each set per week, using questionnaire

Stroke patients in IG showed tendency toward increased PA levels compared to those in CG (no significant difference)

Morén et al. 2016 [34]

Sample size: N = 88

IG: 44, CG: 44

Gender:

M: 41 (47%); F: 47 (53%)

Mean age (SD) in years:

IG: 69.9 (9.1)

CG: 72.3 (8.3)

Follow-up times:

3 months and 6 months

Fidelity score:

7/16 (44%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 6

Unclear risk: 2

High risk: 1

Delivery of Physical activity Prescription (PaP)

Usual care

MVPA assessed by Actigraph activity monitor worn on back (PA behaviour)

MVPA and steps per day, assessed by Actigraph activity monitor worn on back

At 6 months, IG showed tendency towards an increase in steps per day compared to CG (no significant difference)

Severinsen et al. 2014 [35]

Sample size: N = 43

IG1: 13, IG2: 14, CG: 16

Gender:

M: 31 (72%); F: 12 (28%)

Median (IQR) age in years:

IG1: 69 (50–80)

IG2: 68 (57–78)

CG: 66 (52–80)

Follow-up times:

1 year

Fidelity score:

5/16 (31%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 3

Unclear risk: 2

High risk: 3

Aerobic training (IG 1) or progressive resistance training (IG 2)

Low-intensity sham training

6-min walking distance and fast 10-min walking speed (function)

Physical Activity Scale scores expressed as metabolic equivalents

All groups showed significant increases in PA at study end (P < 0.05). No significant between-group difference

Wan et al. 2016 [36]

Sample size: N = 91

IG: 46, CG: 45

Gender:

M: 57 (71%); F: 23 (29%)

Mean age (SD) in years:

IG: 59.07 (12.36)

CG: 60.24 (12.57)

Follow-up times:

3 months and 6 months

Fidelity score:

6/16 (38%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 6

Unclear risk: 1

High risk: 1

Goal-setting telephone follow-up program

Usual care and educational stroke brochures (IG & CG)

Health behaviour assessed using the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II³ (lifestyle behaviour)

8 item physical activity subscale of the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II

PA increased significantly in all groups at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.01) but no significant between-group difference

Katz-Leurer et al. 2003 [37]

Sample size: N = 92

IG: 46, CG: 46

Gender:

M: 50 (54%); F: 42 (46%)

Mean age (SD) in years: 63 (11)

Group age characteristics unavailable

Follow-up times:

6 months

Fidelity score:

5/16 (31%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 3

Unclear risk: 4

High risk: 1

Early aerobic training

Usual care

Physical fitness measured by a graded stress test performed on a cycle ergometer (physical fitness)

Independence in daily and social activities, using the Frenchay Activities Index

No improvements in PA observed in IG or CG

Mudge et al. 2009 [38]

Sample size: N = 58

IG: 31, CG: 27

Gender:

M: 32 (55%); F: 26 (45%)

Age: data unavailableFollow-up times:

3 months

Fidelity score:

12/16 (75%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 6

Unclear risk: 1

High risk: 1

Circuit exercise based rehabilitation

Attention-matched social and educational sessions

Mean number of steps per day measured with StepWatch activity monitor (PA behaviour)

Mean number of steps per day as measured by the StepWatch activity monitor, PADS score

No improvements in PA observed in IG or CG

Sit et al. 2007 [39]

Sample size: N = 190

IG: 107, CG: 83

Gender:

M: 105 (55%); F: 85 (45%)

Mean age (SD) in years:

IG: 63.5 (12)

CG: 65.8 (11.6)

Follow-up times:

Baseline, 1 week, 3 months

Fidelity score:

9/16 (56%)

Methodological quality ratings:

Low risk: 3

Unclear risk: 2

High risk: 3

Educational secondary stroke prevention programme

Usual care and provision of information materials on stroke and stroke prevention

Stroke knowledge; Self health monitoring practice; health behaviours (lifestyle behaviour)

Modified Exercise Scale

No improvements in PA observed in IG or CG