The Recognition-Response Gap in Acute Stroke: Examining the Relationship between Stroke Recognition and Response in a General Population Survey.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of reperfusion therapies in acute ischemic stroke are highly time-dependent. It is crucial that people who witness the onset of symptoms call emergency medical services (EMS) immediately. The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a gap between recognition of stroke and responding correctly by calling EMS using a scenario-based measure. METHODS: Population-based survey of 1406 individuals from Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, examining stroke recognition and response knowledge using 12 scenario-based vignettes. The response rate was 32% out of 5000 contacted individuals. In total, 16,574 responses to scenarios were examined to investigate whether respondents would recognise stroke symptoms and indicate to call EMS immediately. RESULTS: In 16% of cases people recognised stroke but did not correctly respond by indicating to call EMS. In 49% of responses people recognised stroke and would respond correctly, while in 31% of cases people both failed to correctly recognise and failed to identify the correct response to the stroke scenario. In 5% of cases stroke was not identified but a correct response was indicated. When stroke was recognised, in 25% of responses people indicated that they would not call EMS. Recognition self-efficacy and response self-efficacy were associated with correct response. CONCLUSIONS: A recognition-response gap was identified among UK adults in hypothetical scenarios concerning stroke. Both recognition and translation to adequate EMS response should be explicitly addressed in interventions aiming to improve witness response to stroke. Self-efficacy may be a promising target to close the recognition-response gap.

Differences Between US and UK Adults in Stroke Preparedness: Evidence From Parallel Population-Based Community Surveys.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although time-dependent treatment is available, most people delay contacting emergency medical services for stroke. Given differences in the healthcare system and public health campaigns, exploring between-country differences in stroke preparedness may identify novel ways to increase acute stroke treatment. METHODS: A survey was mailed to population-based samples in Ingham County, Michigan, US (n=2500), and Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (n=2500). Surveys included stroke perceptions and stroke/nonstroke scenarios to assess recognition and response to stroke. Between-country differences and associations with stroke preparedness were examined using t tests and linear mixed models. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 27.4%. The mean age of participants was 55 years, and 58% were female. US participants were better in recognizing stroke (70% versus 63%, d=0.27) and were more likely to call emergency medical services (55% versus 52%, d=0.11). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, US participants remained more likely to recognize stroke but were not more likely to respond appropriately. A greater belief that medical treatment can help with stroke and understanding of stroke was associated with improved stroke recognition and response. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, stroke recognition and response were moderate. US participants were modestly better at recognizing stroke, although there was little difference in response to stroke. Future stroke awareness interventions could focus more on stroke outcome expectations and developing a greater understanding of stroke among the public.

The stroke 'Act FAST' campaign: remembered but not understood?

BACKGROUND: The stroke awareness raising campaign 'Act FAST' (Face, Arms, Speech: Time to call Emergency Medical Services) has been rolled out in multiple waves in England, but impact on stroke recognition and response remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test whether providing knowledge of the FAST acronym through a standard Act FAST campaign leaflet increases accurate recognition and response in stroke-based scenario measures. METHODS: This is a population-based, cross-sectional survey of adults in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, sampled using the electoral register, with individuals randomized to receive a questionnaire and Act FAST leaflet (n = 2500) or a questionnaire only (n = 2500) in 2012. Campaign message retention, stroke recognition, and response measured through 16 scenario-based vignettes were assessed. Data were analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Questionnaire return rate was 32.3% (n = 1615). No differences were found between the leaflet and no-leaflet groups in return rate or demographics. Participants who received a leaflet showed better campaign recall (75.7% vs. 68.2%, P = 0.003) and recalled more FAST mnemonic elements (66.1% vs. 45.3% elements named correctly, P < 0.001). However, there were no between-group differences for stroke recognition and response to stroke-based scenarios (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater levels of recall of specific 'Act FAST' elements among those receiving the Act FAST leaflet, there was no impact on stroke recognition and response measures.

The impact of the UK 'Act FAST' stroke awareness campaign: content analysis of patients, witness and primary care clinicians' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The English mass media campaign 'Act FAST' aimed to raise stroke awareness and the need to call emergency services at the onset of suspected stroke. We examined the perceived impact and views of the campaign in target populations to identify potential ways to optimise mass-media interventions for stroke. METHODS: Analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted as part of two qualitative studies, which examined factors influencing patient/witness response to acute stroke symptoms (n = 19 stroke patients, n = 26 stroke witnesses) and perceptions about raising stroke awareness in primary care (n = 30 clinicians). Both studies included questions about the 'Act FAST' campaign. Interviews were content analysed to determine campaign awareness, perceived impact on decisions and response to stroke, and views of the campaign. RESULTS: Most participants were aware of the Act FAST campaign. Some patients and witnesses reported that the campaign impacted upon their stroke recognition and response, but the majority reported no impact. Clinicians often perceived campaign success in raising stroke awareness, but few thought it would change response behaviours. Some patients and witnesses, and most primary care clinicians expressed positive views towards the campaign. Some more critical participant comments included perceptions of dramatic, irrelevant, and potentially confusing content, such as a prominent 'fire in the brain' analogy. CONCLUSIONS: Act FAST has had some perceived impact on stroke recognition and response in some stroke patients and witnesses, but the majority reported no campaign impact. Primary care clinicians were positive about the campaign, and believed it had impacted on stroke awareness and recognition but doubted impact on response behaviour. Potential avenues for optimising and complementing mass media campaigns such as 'Act FAST' were identified.

Why people do, or do not, immediately contact emergency medical services following the onset of acute stroke: qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the reasons why individuals contact, or delay contacting, emergency medical services in response to stroke symptoms. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with a purposive sample of stroke patients and witnesses, selected according to method of accessing medical care and the time taken to do so. Data were analysed using the Framework approach. SETTING: Area covered by three acute stroke units in the north east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen stroke patients and 26 witnesses who had called for help following the onset of stroke symptoms. RESULTS: Factors influencing who called emergency medical services and when they called included stroke severity, how people made sense of symptoms and their level of motivation to seek help. Fear of the consequences of stroke, including future dependence or disruption to family life, previous negative experience of hospitals, or involving a friend or relations in the decision to access medical services, all resulted in delayed admission. Lack of knowledge of stroke symptoms was also an important determinant. Perceptions of the remit of medical services were a major cause of delays in admission, with many people believing the most appropriate action was to telephone their GP. Variations in the response of primary care teams to acute stroke symptoms were also evident. CONCLUSIONS: The factors influencing help-seeking decisions are complex. There remains a need to improve recognition by patients, witnesses and health care staff of the need to treat stroke as a medical emergency by calling emergency medical services, as well as increasing knowledge of symptoms of stroke among patients and potential witnesses. Fear, denial and reticence to impose on others hinders the process of seeking help and will need addressing specifically with appropriate interventions. Variability in how primary care services respond to stroke needs further investigation to inform interventions to promote best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network UKCRN 6590.

Situationally-sensitive knowledge translation and relational decision making in hyperacute stroke: a qualitative study.

Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Early treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with rtPA reduces the risk of longer term dependency but carries an increased risk of causing immediate bleeding complications. To understand the challenges of knowledge translation and decision making about treatment with rtPA in hyperacute stroke and hence to inform development of appropriate decision support we interviewed patients, their family and health professionals. The emergency setting and the symptomatic effects of hyper-acute stroke shaped the form, content and manner of knowledge translation to support decision making. Decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke presented three conundrums for patients, family and clinicians. 1) How to allow time for reflection in a severely time-limited setting. 2) How to facilitate knowledge translation regarding important treatment risks and benefits when patient and family capacity is blunted by the effects and shock of stroke. 3) How to ensure patient and family views are taken into account when the situation produces reliance on the expertise of clinicians. Strategies adopted to meet these conundrums were fourfold: face to face communication; shaping decisions; incremental provision of information; and communication tailored to the individual patient. Relational forms of interaction were understood to engender trust and allay anxiety. Shaping decisions with patients was understood as an expression of confidence by clinicians that helped alleviate anxiety and offered hope and reassurance to patients and their family experiencing the shock of the stroke event. Neutral presentations of information and treatment options promoted uncertainty and contributed to anxiety. 'Drip feeding' information created moments for reflection: clinicians literally made time. Tailoring information to the particular patient and family situation allowed clinicians to account for social and emotional contexts. The principal responses to the challenges of decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke were relational decision support and situationally-sensitive knowledge translation.

Evidence from the scene: paramedic perspectives on involvement in out-of-hospital research.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the context of calls to develop better systems for out-of-hospital clinical research, we seek to understand paramedics' perceptions of involvement in research and the barriers and facilitators to that involvement. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semistructured focus groups with 58 United Kingdom paramedics and interviews with 30 US firefighter-paramedics. The study focused on out-of-hospital research (trials of out-of-hospital treatment for stroke), whereby paramedics identified potential study subjects or obtained consent and administered study treatment in the field. Data were analyzed with a thematic and discourse approach. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged as significant facilitators and barriers to paramedic involvement in research: patient benefit, professional identity and responsibility, and time. Paramedics showed willingness and capacity to engage in research but also some reticence because of the perceived sacrifice of autonomy and challenge to their identity. Paramedics work in a time-sensitive environment and were concerned that research would increase time taken in the field. CONCLUSION: Awareness of these perspectives will help with development of out-of-hospital research protocols and potentially facilitate greater participation.