Unmet needs after stroke: a review of the research

• The researchers wanted to know how many stroke survivors have needs that are not being met.
• They also wanted to know what things make a person more likely to have unmet needs.
• An unmet need is when a person feels they need help, but they are not getting it.

• This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• This means the researchers gathered many past studies. Then they combined the results using maths to get one overall answer.

•     About two in three people (66%) had at least one unmet need.

•     The most common unmet need was information and education about stroke (60%).

•     Other common unmet needs were: tiredness (49%), trouble concentrating (46%), headache (37%), anxiety or low mood (36%), and diet (36%).

•     The researchers found 68 different unmet needs across six areas of life.

Some things were linked to having more unmet needs. These included:

•     Being younger or being much older.

•     Having a more severe stroke.

•     Having anxiety or depression.

•     Having less money.

•     Living in a country area rather than a city.

These links were not always the same across studies. So they should be read with care.

• Many people have lasting problems after a stroke. These can be in the body, the mind, or daily life.
• These days, people leave hospital sooner and get more care at home. This puts more on survivors and families.
• The researchers wanted an up-to-date picture of what help people are missing.

•     Unmet needs after stroke are very common. This is true even years later.

•     Clear information about stroke and recovery is often missing. People may benefit from information made to suit their needs and stage.

•     Tiredness, poor concentration, anxiety, and low mood often go unhelped. Regular check-ins for mood and thinking may help.

•     Some groups may need extra support. These include younger survivors, people with low mood or worry, people with money worries, and people with ongoing thinking or tiredness problems.

•     The researchers searched three large research databases.

•     They looked for studies from 2013 to 2025 about people living in the community after a stroke.

•     Two researchers checked each study on their own. Senior researchers settled any disagreements.

•     They used a maths method to combine the results and work out an overall rate.

•     The article did not report this. It did not test a treatment. It looked at what help people are missing.

•     Stroke is a top cause of long-term disability around the world.

•     Having a problem after stroke is not the same as having an unmet need. An unmet need is when help is missing.

•     Older reviews on this topic used out-of-date studies. So a new review was needed.

•     The article did not report any risks. This kind of review uses studies that already happened. It does not test anything new on people.

•     Studies could be included if they had adults aged 18 or over who had a stroke or a mini-stroke (TIA).

•     The people had to be living in the community, such as at home.

•     A family member or carer could answer for the person in some studies.

•     Studies were left out if the people were still in hospital or in a rehab unit.

•     The review brought together 19 studies with 8,138 people in total.

•     Most studies had more men than women.

•     In seven studies, the average age was under 65.

•     People were asked about their needs at different times, from about 3 months to nearly 8 years after their stroke.

•     Most studies came from higher-income countries. Only one came from a lower-income country (Ethiopia).

•     A systematic review is a fair way to bring together what many studies found.

•     A meta-analysis lets researchers turn many results into one clear number.

•     The team focused on recent studies so the results match how stroke care works today.

•     The researchers searched for studies from January 2013 to June 2025.

•     The article was accepted in February 2026 and published online in June 2026.

•     This was a review of studies from many countries.

•     The research team was based in Australia.

•     The studies came from places such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Taiwan, Ireland, Germany, and Ethiopia.

•     The project was funded by a Stroke Foundation Seed Grant.

•     Two of the researchers had fellowship support. One from the National Heart Foundation of Australia. One from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

•     Almost all the studies came from richer countries. Only one came from a lower-income country.

•     The studies were very different from each other. This makes them hard to compare.

•     People with thinking or communication problems, such as aphasia, are often left out of stroke research. So their needs may be undercounted.

•     When a carer answered instead of the survivor, the results were not always kept separate. So it is hard to tell whose view it was.

•     The review was done in a careful, planned way. The plan was registered before it started.

•     It followed a well-known set of rules for good reviews (called PRISMA).

•     All the studies were checked for quality. They scored fair to good.

•     Still, the needs were based on what people said about themselves. This can be affected by memory, thinking, or communication problems.

•     More research is needed in lower-income countries.

•     Researchers should agree on one clear way to measure unmet needs. This would make studies easier to compare.

•     Future studies should include people with thinking and communication problems, such as aphasia.

•     Future studies could use more than one source of information, such as survivor reports, carer reports, and health records.

•     The full article is in the journal Rehabilitation Psychology (2026).

•     Online link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000675

•     Extra materials are online at: https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000675.supp

•     The article is open access. This means anyone can read it for free.