Sarah Northcott1, Becky Moss2, Kirsty Harrison2, Katerina Hilari2. 1. Division of Language and Communication Science, School of Health Sciences, City University London, UK S.A.J.Northcott@city.ac.uk. 2. Division of Language and Communication Science, School of Health Sciences, City University London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identify what factors are associated with functional social support and social network post stroke; explore stroke survivors' perspectives on what changes occur and how they are perceived. DATA SOURCES: The following electronic databases were systematically searched up to May 2015: Academic Search Complete; CINAHL Plus; E-journals; Health Policy Reference Centre; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; and SocINDEX. REVIEW METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. All included studies were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tools. Meta-ethnographic techniques were used to integrate findings from the qualitative studies. Given the heterogeneous nature of the quantitative studies, data synthesis was narrative. RESULTS: Seventy research reports met the eligibility criteria: 22 qualitative and 48 quantitative reporting on 4,816 stroke survivors. The qualitative studies described a contraction of the social network, with non-kin contact being vulnerable. Although family were more robust network members, significant strain was observed within the family unit. In the quantitative studies, poor functional social support was associated with depression (13/14 studies), reduced quality of life (6/6 studies) and worse physical recovery (2/2 studies). Reduced social network was associated with depression (7/8 studies), severity of disability (2/2 studies) and aphasia (2/2 studies). Although most indicators of social network reduced post stroke (for example, contact with friends, 5/5 studies), the perception of feeling supported remained relatively stable (4/4 studies). CONCLUSION: Following a stroke non-kin contact is vulnerable, strain is observed within the family unit, and poor social support is associated with depressive symptoms.
OBJECTIVE: Identify what factors are associated with functional social support and social network post stroke; explore stroke survivors' perspectives on what changes occur and how they are perceived. DATA SOURCES: The following electronic databases were systematically searched up to May 2015: Academic Search Complete; CINAHL Plus; E-journals; Health Policy Reference Centre; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; and SocINDEX. REVIEW METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. All included studies were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tools. Meta-ethnographic techniques were used to integrate findings from the qualitative studies. Given the heterogeneous nature of the quantitative studies, data synthesis was narrative. RESULTS: Seventy research reports met the eligibility criteria: 22 qualitative and 48 quantitative reporting on 4,816 stroke survivors. The qualitative studies described a contraction of the social network, with non-kin contact being vulnerable. Although family were more robust network members, significant strain was observed within the family unit. In the quantitative studies, poor functional social support was associated with depression (13/14 studies), reduced quality of life (6/6 studies) and worse physical recovery (2/2 studies). Reduced social network was associated with depression (7/8 studies), severity of disability (2/2 studies) and aphasia (2/2 studies). Although most indicators of social network reduced post stroke (for example, contact with friends, 5/5 studies), the perception of feeling supported remained relatively stable (4/4 studies). CONCLUSION: Following a stroke non-kin contact is vulnerable, strain is observed within the family unit, and poor social support is associated with depressive symptoms.
Authors: Altaf Saadi; Kigocha Okeng'o; Maijo R Biseko; Agness F Shayo; Theoflo N Mmbando; Sara J Grundy; Ai Xu; Robert A Parker; Leah Wibecan; Geetha Iyer; Peter M Onesmo; Boniphace N Kapina; Robert W Regenhardt; Farrah J Mateen Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Tanya Eadie; Mara Kapsner-Smith; Susan Bolt; Cara Sauder; Kathryn Yorkston; Carolyn Baylor Journal: Int J Lang Commun Disord Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Rebecca Lewthwaite; Carolee J Winstein; Christianne J Lane; Sarah Blanton; Burl R Wagenheim; Monica A Nelsen; Alexander W Dromerick; Steven L Wolf Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Catherine Minshall; Chantal F Ski; Pragalathan Apputhurai; David R Thompson; David J Castle; Zoe Jenkins; Simon R Knowles Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2021-03
Authors: Amar Dhand; Catherine E Lang; Douglas A Luke; Angela Kim; Karen Li; Liam McCafferty; Yi Mu; Bernard Rosner; Steven K Feske; Jin-Moo Lee Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Jessica L McCurley; Christopher J Funes; Emily L Zale; Ann Lin; Michelle Jacobo; Jamie M Jacobs; Danielle Salgueiro; Tara Tehan; Jonathan Rosand; Ana-Maria Vranceanu Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Matthew R Augustine; Albert L Siu; Kenneth S Boockvar; Linda V DeCherrie; Bruce A Leff; Alex D Federman Journal: Home Healthc Now Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01