Intervention Mapping framework supports development of tailored behavioral interventions for stroke survivor rehabilitationNew framework helps tailor behavior goals for stroke survivors

BackgroundFunctional recovery after stroke is substantially dependent on systematic, evidence-based behavioral interventions. Intervention Mapping (IM), as a structured framework for intervention development, has demonstrated favorable outcomes across various health domains. This systematic review had one primary aim to identify and characterize how the IM framework has been applied to develop behavioral interventions for stroke survivors. Moreover, we describe the core characteristics of IM-guided stroke behavioral interventions and evaluate the methodological reporting quality of IM application.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for relevant literature published up to March 20, 2026. Studies employing IM to guide the development of behavioral interventions for stroke survivors were included, irrespective of study design. The characteristics of intervention design, implementation processes, methodological quality, and outcome evaluations were synthesized and analyzed.ResultsNine studies were included, with overall methodological quality ratings ranging from “moderate” to “strong.” Three patterns of IM application were identified: (1) full application of all six steps (4/9); (2) partial application focusing on the development phase (Steps 1–4, 4/9); and (3) deep integration with co-design methodologies (2/9). All interventions integrated behavior change theories and exhibited multi-level, multi-component, and contextually tailored characteristics. Delivery formats included face-to-face counseling, telehealth coaching, digital toolkits, and video-based education. Six studies reported feasibility evaluations; interventions demonstrated high acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility, with preliminary signals of improved knowledge, enhanced self-efficacy, and positive behavioral intentions. No studies reported long-term hard clinical outcomes. All studies produced logic models and intervention manuals; however, reporting transparency regarding operational details of Step 2 (matrices of change objectives) and Step 3 (theory-based methods and practical strategies) was suboptimal in some studies, constraining methodological replicability.ConclusionIM provides a viable structured framework for the systematic development and implementation of behavioral interventions in stroke rehabilitation, contributing to enhanced theoretical grounding, contextual adaptability, and implementation rigor. Future research should deepen the internalization of IM’s technical core, rigorously adhere to reporting standards, and advance mature interventions into large-sample, long-term, multi-center efficacy trials to achieve systematic orchestration across the intervention science continuum—from development to clinical translation.Systematic review registrationThe Systematic Review was registered in INPLASY platform (INPLASY202630004), the website was: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2026-3-0004/.