| Literature DB >> 24616623 |
E Hole1, B Stubbs2, C Roskell1, A Soundy1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24616623 PMCID: PMC3927748 DOI: 10.1155/2014/349151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
The database search terms.
| Condition | Specific person | intervention | Result of intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stroke | Patient* | Rehabilitation | Experience |
| CVA | Service user | Rehab* | Satisfaction |
| Cerebrovascular accident | Stroke survivor | Therapy | Well-being |
| Client* | Physical therapy* | Perception | |
| Physiotherapy* | Contentedness | ||
| Quality of therapy | |||
| Quality of rehabilitation |
Note: during the search each term within the column was combined using the term “OR” then the results from each column were combined using the term “AND.”
*A process in searches where the words were reduced in size to capture ali variants of the word. E.gv patient* could be patient, patients, patient's, patients'.
Figure 1A PRISMA diagram for the study. This is based on PRISMA 2009 flow diagram and shows the search results across all four databases with numbers of articles retrieved and excluded at each stage of the selection process [14]. For more information, visit http://www.consort-statement.org/.
Characteristics of the synthesised papers.
| Source paper/location of study | Sample population (age and gender) | Data collection and schedule | Location of data collection | Specific topic covered in study | Method of analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Sabari et al. (2000) [ | Aged 45–75 years | 2 | Home environment of one of the participants | Encouraged as normal as possible discussions as per support group meetings were found to be discussions about experiences of rehab | Grounded theory approach |
| (2) Proot et al. (2000) [ | 17 stroke patients; aged 50–85 years; 7 female |
| Hospital setting | Open ended interview questions based on autonomy which patients were assisted to define for themselves initially | Grounded theory approach |
| (3) Burton (2000) [ | 6 stroke patients; aged 52–81; | Monthly | Initially hospital then home environment | Informal and unstructured patient asked to tell their story | Grounded theory approach |
| (4) Bendz (2003) [ | 15 stroke patients All <65 years old; |
| Home environment | Semi-structured questions re: patient's perception of their stroke and ensuing rehabilitation | Interpretative approach to create categories on analysis (grounded theory approach) |
| (5) Röding et al. (2003) [ | 5 stroke patients; aged 37–54; |
| Stipulated by participants: 4 in home environment | Hospital stay | Grounded theory approach |
| (6) Cowdell and Garrett, (2003) [ | 8 stroke patients; age unknown |
| Hospital ward | Participant current levels of activity. Views on recreational activity prior to stroke and after-stroke | Grounded theory approach |
| (7) Gibbon, (2004) [ | 15 stroke patients aged 47–84; | One | Home environment | Impact of stroke | Latent content analysis/grounded theory approach |
| (8) Olofsson et al. (2005) [ | 9 stroke patients; aged 64–83; |
| Home environment | Patient's stay in hospital | Grounded theory approach |
| (9) Morris et al. (2007) [ | 10 stroke patients; aged 45–81; 8 male | A | Hospital setting | Chronological questions sequenced from the stroke event to discharge | Grounded theory approach |
| (10) Mangset et al. (2008) [ | 12 stroke patients; |
| Initially hospital setting followed by home environment | Share experiences in connection with the stroke incident | Grounded theory approach |
| (11) Ellis-Hill et al. (2009) [ | 20 stroke patients |
| Home environment | Talk about the effects of their stroke | Framework analysis with the grounded theory approach |
| (12) Erikson et al. (2010) [ | 9 stroke survivors; Aged 42–61 years; |
| At 1 month: hospital setting | Experiences performing daily activities relative to those experiences prior to acquiring a stroke | Grounded theory approach |
| (13) Wottrich et al. (2012) [ | 5 stroke patients; aged 44–70 years; |
| Interview 1: hospital setting | Experience of ending contact with staff on the ward | Grounded theory approach |
The summary of results of the COREQ (Tong et al., 2007 [62]) appraisal for the thirteen included studies.
| Author/year of publication | Domain 1 (8) | Domain 2 (15) | Domain 3 (9) | Total (32) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sabari et al. (2000) [ | 6 | 13 | 8 | 27 |
| Proot et al. (2000) [ | 3 | 11 | 8 | 22 |
| Burton (2000) [ | 4 | 12 | 6 | 22 |
|
Bendz (2003) [ | 5 | 10 | 7 | 22 |
| Röding et al. (2003) [ | 3 | 10 | 8 | 21 |
| Cowdell and Garrett (2003) [ | 6 | 11 | 6 | 23 |
| Gibbon (2004) [ | 5 | 11 | 6 | 22 |
| Olofsson et al. (2005) [ | 4 | 12 | 6 | 22 |
| Morris et al. (2007) [ | 6 | 11 | 8 | 25 |
| Mangset et al. (2008) [ | 3 | 12 | 6 | 21 |
| Ellis-Hill et al. (2009) [ | 6 | 12 | 7 | 25 |
| Erikson et al. (2010) [ | 6 | 12 | 6 | 24 |
| Wottrich et al. (2012) [ | 5 | 10 | 7 | 22 |
|
| ||||
| Mean |
|
|
|
|
| Median |
|
|
|
|
| Mode |
|
|
|
|
Findings of the synthesised translations.
| Theme | Subtheme | Second order construct | Papers where second order construct appears |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Evolution of identity | (a) Sense of the individual's identity | The whole person | 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 |
| (b) Being at a dividing line | Transition | 1, 10, 12, 13 | |
| (c) Rebuilding and restructuring identity | Adjustment | 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13 | |
| (d) Reintegrating identity with their life | Occupation | 12, 13 | |
|
| |||
| (2) Psychosocial constructs that influence experience | (a) Support | Information and resources | 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 |
| (b) Autonomy | Problem solving | 2, 8, 11 | |
| (c) Coping and adjustment | Being another persons | 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 | |
| (d) Hope | Progress to goals | 3, 7, 11, 13 | |
| (e) Success motivation and mastery experiences | Increasing expertise | 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12 | |
Note: 1: Sabari et al., 2000 [48], 2: Proot et al., 2000 [49], 3: Burton, 2000 [50], 4: Bendz, 2003 [37], 5: Röding et al., 2003 [38], 6: Cowdell and Garrett, 2003 [39], 7: Gibbon, 2004 [51], 8: Olofsson et al., 2005 [52], 9: Morris et al., 2007 [53], 10: Mangset et al., 2008 [54], 11: Ellis-Hill et al., 2009 [55], 12: Erikson et al., 2010 [26], and 13: Wottrich et al., 2012 [56].
Figure 2The model of transitional experiences within stroke rehabilitation.