| Literature DB >> 21918730 |
Jacqui Morris1, Tracey Oliver, Thilo Kroll, Steve Macgillivray.
Abstract
Background. People with stroke are not maintaining adequate engagement in physical activity (PA) for health and functional benefit. This paper sought to describe any psychological and social factors that may influence physical activity engagement after stroke. Methods. A structured literature review of studies indexed in MEDLINE, CinAHL, P&BSC, and PsycINFO using search terms relevant to stroke, physical disabilities, and PA. Publications reporting empirical findings (quantitative or qualitative) regarding psychological and/or social factors were included. Results. Twenty studies from 19 publications (9 surveys, 1 RCT, and 10 qualitative studies) were included. Seventeen studies reported findings pertinent to psychological factors and fourteen findings pertinent to social factors. Conclusion. Self-efficacy, physical activity beliefs, and social support appear particularly relevant to physical activity behaviour after stroke and should be included in theoretically based physical interventions. The Transtheoretical Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour are candidate behavioural models that may support intervention development.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21918730 PMCID: PMC3170904 DOI: 10.1155/2012/195249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stroke Res Treat
Search terms used and databases searched.
| Search architecture | |
|---|---|
| (1) | (MH “Stroke”) or (MH “Arthritis+”) or (MH “Cerebral Palsy”) or (MH “Multiple Sclerosis”) or (MH “Muscular Dystrophy+”) or (MH “Muscular Dystrophies+”) or (MH “Parkinson Disease”) |
| (2) | TI stroke or AB stroke |
| (3) | 1 or 2 |
| (4) | (MH “PA”) or (MH “Exercise+”) or (MH “Physical Mobility”) or (MM “PA”) OR (MM “Exercise”) |
| (5) | 3 and 4 |
Databases searched: Medline; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CinAHL); Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (PBSC); PsycINFO.
Criteria for including and excluding publications in the review.
| Criteria | |
|---|---|
| Include if publication | (i) included participants with diagnosed stroke |
| (ii) focuses on psychological or social factors | |
| (iii) focuses on issues pertinent to the uptake of or maintenance of PA/exercise after stroke | |
| (iv) reports empirical data whether quantitative (e.g., RCT, survey, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series) or qualitative (e.g., in-depth interview, focus group, and ethnography) | |
| (v) reports primary or secondary derived data | |
| Exclude if publication | (i) does not include a sufficient focus on people with stroke |
| (ii) is not primarily focused on PA or exercise after stroke | |
| (iii) does not report data pertinent to understanding psychological or social factors | |
| (iv) is not empirical | |
Figure 1Flow diagram of publications found and included or excluded.
Excluded publications with reasons for exclusion by publication/study type.
| Publication | Reason for exclusion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No stroke population focus | No focus on psychosocial factors | No focus on maintenance or uptake of exercise | Not empirical | |
| Surveys | ||||
| Bohannon 2004 | — | — | ||
| Cliodhna 2007 | — | — | — | |
| Junker 2011 | — | — | — | |
| Michael 2006 | — | — | — | |
| Bonetti 2008 | — | — | — | |
| Cohort | ||||
| Molloy 2008 | — | — | — | |
| CT/RCTs | ||||
| Boysen 2009a | — | — | ||
| Coyle 1995 | — | — | ||
| Gillham 2010 | — | — | — | |
| Harrington 2010 | — | — | — | |
| Huijbregts 2008 | — | — | — | |
| Langhammer 2008 | — | — | ||
| Marsden 2010 | — | — | ||
| McLellan 2004 | — | — | ||
| Michael 2009 | — | — | ||
| Patterson 2010 | — | — | ||
| Stuart 2009 | — | — | ||
| van der Ploeg 2006 | — | — | ||
| Qualitative | ||||
| Pound 1999 | — | — | — | |
| Commentaries/reviews/ | ||||
| Ada 2006 | — | — | ||
| Blennerhassett 2008 | — | — | ||
| Boysen 2009b | — | |||
| Gordon 2004 | — | — | ||
| Lawrence 2009 | — | |||
| Mead 2009 | — | — | ||
| Morris 2009 | — | — | ||
| Shaughnessy 2009 | — | — | — | |
CT: controlled trial; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
Summary of included studies.
| Study (first author) | Year | Country of study | Study type |
Participants | Ethnicity | Reports data pertinent to | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| psychological factors | social factors | ||||||
| Kinne | 1999 | USA | Survey | Not reported | 91% Caucasian; | — | |
| Johnston | 1999 | UK | Survey | 10 days–6 months | Not reported | — | |
| Cardinal | 2004 | USA | Survey | Not reported | 91.9% Caucasian | — | |
| Shaughnessy | 2006 | USA | Survey | 60.2 months | 70% Caucasian; | ||
| Nosek | 2006 | USA | Survey | Not reported | 80.8% Caucasian; | ||
| Resnick | 2007 | USA | Survey | Not reported | 57% Caucasian | — | |
| Barker | 2007 | Australia | Survey | 4.9 years | 98% nonindigenous; | — | |
| Rimmer | 2008 | USA | Survey | Not reported | 9% Caucasian; | ||
| Galvin | 2009 | Ireland | Survey | Not reported | Not reported | — | |
| Boysen | 2009 | Denmark/Poland/ | RCT | <90 days | Not reported | — | |
| Maher | 1999 | USA | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Barker | 2005 | Australia | Qualitative | Mean 4.9 yrs | Not reported | ||
| Damush | 2007 | USA | Qualitative | <12 months | 85% African American, | ||
| Wiles | 2008 | UK | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Resnick | 2008 | USA | Qualitative | 6 months+ | 47% black, | ||
| Graham | 2008 | Canada/N. Ireland | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Reed | 2009 | UK | Qualitative | 15–40 months | Not reported | ||
| Carin-Levy | 2009 | UK | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Galvin | 2009 | Ireland | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | — | |
| Patterson | 2009 | Australia | Qualitative | Not reported | Not reported | ||
Methodological quality assessment of the 10 quantitative studies included.
| Study | Methodological element | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surveys | Sampling strategy indicates likelihood of generalizability | Reported good response rate (60%+) | Use of validated instruments | Appropriate statistical testing |
| Barker et al. [ | Not stated | |||
| Cardinal et al. [ | ||||
| Galvin et al. [ | × | × | × | |
| Johnston et al. [ | ||||
| Kinne et al. [ | × | |||
| Nosek et al. [ | ||||
| Resnick et al. [ | × | |||
| Rimmer et al. [ | × | × | ||
| Shaughnessy et al. [ | × | |||
| RCT | Adequate allocation concealment | Adequate randomisation | Adequate blinding | Intention to treat analysis |
| Boysen et al. [ | ||||
Global assessment of study quality and typologies of study findings of the 10 qualitative studies included.
| Study | Typology of study findings | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative studies | Global assessment of study quality | No findings | Topical survey | Thematic survey | Conceptual thematic description | Interpretive explanation |
| Barker and Brauer [ | Strong | — | — | — | — | |
| Carin-Levy et al. [ | Strong | — | — | — | — | |
| Maher et al. [ | Strong | — | — | — | — | |
| Reed et al. [ | Strong | — | — | — | — | |
| Wiles et al. [ | Strong | — | — | — | — | |
| Damush et al. [ | Weak | — | — | — | — | |
| Galvin et al. [ | Weak | — | — | — | — | |
| Graham et al. [ | Weak | — | — | — | — | |
| Patterson and Ross-Edwards [ | Weak | — | — | — | — | |
| Resnick et al. [ | Weak | — | — | — | — | |
Psychological and social factors for which findings exist.
| Psychological factors | Social factors |
|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | The role of family and friends in supporting PA after stroke |
| Locus of control | The role of health professionals |
| Competence to be physically active | The role of exercise professionals |
| Beliefs about the nature of PA | The role of other people with stroke and disability |
| Motivational barriers to becoming or remaining physically active | Group exercise |
| Self-determination as a facilitator to becoming and remaining physically active | |
| Beliefs about positive and negative outcomes of being physically active |
Details of the qualitative studies included in the review regarding method, participants, setting, summary of findings pertinent to psychological and social factors, and notes regarding theoretical models.
| Study | Method | Participants | Setting | Summary of findings | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damush et al. [ | Qualitative: | Age: mean = 59 | Country: USA | Barriers and facilitators to engage in PA. | No theoretical model used to underpin findings |
| Maher et al. [ | Mixed methods Qualitative: interview | Age: mean for whole sample ( | Country: USA | No theoretical model used to underpin findings | |
| Reed et al. [ | Qualitative: interviews | Age: >60–73+ | Country: UK | Developed own theoretical model to underpin findings | |
| Barker and Brauer [ | Qualitative: focus groups and interviews | Age: mean = 64 | Country: Australia | Developed own theoretical model to underpin findings | |
| Carin-Levy et al. [ | Qualitative: interviews | Age: range 45–85 | Country: Scotland | Locus of control discussed in part explanation of results | |
| Resnick et al. [ | Qualitative: | Age: over 45 | Country: USA | Aspects of SCT self-efficacy used to underpin findings | |
| Galvin et al. [ | Mixed methods Qualitative: | Age: not reported | Country: Ireland | No theoretical model used to underpin findings | |
| Graham et al. [ | Qualitative: interviews | Age: not reported | Country: Northern Ireland/Canada | Aspects of SCT self-efficacy used to underpin psychological factors Self-determination theory—increased autonomy and competence and social interaction increases intrinsic motivation to engage in PA | |
| Wiles et al. [ | Qualitative interviews with stroke survivors ( | Age: mean = 18–78 | Country: UK | No theoretical model used to underpin results | |
| Patterson and Ross-Edwards [ | Qualitative | Age: mean = 59.8 | Country: Australia | Aspects of SCT self-efficacy | |
Details of the quantitative studies included in the review regarding: method, participants, setting, summary of findings pertinent to psychological and social factors, and notes regarding theoretical models.
| Study | Methods | Participants | Setting | Findings | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rimmer et al. [ | Survey: | USA | No theoretical model used to underpin questionnaire or findings | ||
| Galvin et al. [ | Survey: | Ireland | No theoretical model used to underpin questionnaire or findings | ||
| Shaughnessy et al. [ | Survey using the Short Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale and the Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale | USA | Low response rate from national survey, attended stroke support groups therefore likely to be motivated | ||
| Johnston et al. [ | Longitudinal survey assessing outcomes at 10–20 days, one month after discharge, and six months after discharge | Scotland | Amount of explained variance is small | ||
| Cardinal et al. [ | Survey | USA | Stroke participants formed only small proportion of sample therefore generalisation difficult | ||
| Nosek et al. [ | Survey | USA | Physically active population with 73% engaging in physical activity once a week. Self-report of physical activity | ||
| Kinne et al. [ | Survey | USA | Small proportion of sample are people with stroke | ||
| Boysen et al. [ | RCT primary outcome: Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly | Centres in Denmark, China, Poland, and Estonia stroke units | No significant difference between the groups on PASE at 3,6,9,12, 18 or 24 month followup | Self-reported levels of physical activity—not assessed by accelerometer, pedometer, and so forth, or by other fitness measures. | |