Background: Community-based programs to support recovery after stroke or ischaemic heart disease (IHD) are offered in groups or individually. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of group versus individual formats is unclear.
Aims: To map and summarise the available literature on the type of program, effectiveness (health outcomes), retention, adherence, costs, or other benefits of group-based programs compared with similar individual-based programs provided for adults living with stroke or IHD in the community.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted based on Johanna Briggs Institute methods. Articles were retrieved from the following databases: Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL from 2002 to 2022. Extracted outcomes from the included articles covered health outcomes for comparative effectiveness (such as impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions), retention and adherence, social connection, and the costs associated with group- and individual-based programs.
Results: 1954 articles were retrieved. After screening, five studies were included. Three types of programs were assessed: exercise (3), communication (1), and occupational (1). Superiority of group- or individual-based programs for health outcomes was unable to be determined. The included studies were small (N=14-36 participants). Only one study reported adherence, in which the authors found that adherence was greater among those participating in the group-based program. Authors of only one article discussed the role of social connection, in which they found that connection with peers were welcomed by participants in the group-based program. Costs associated with program delivery were not reported in the included studies.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence comparing community-based group and individual programs for adults living with stroke or IHD. Future adequately powered studies are needed to determine if group or individual-based program is more effective. Furthermore, additional studies that investigate patient and clinician experiences could provide insight into the value of delivering programs in these different formats.