What underlies the difference between self-reported health and disability after stroke? A qualitative study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Levels of self-reported health do not always correlate with levels of physical disability in stroke survivors. We aimed to explore what underlies the difference between subjective self-reported health and objectively measured disability among stroke survivors. METHODS: Face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors recruited from a stroke clinic or rehabilitation ward in the UK. Fifteen stroke survivors purposively sampled from the clinic who had discordant self-rated health and levels of disability i.e. reported health as 'excellent' or 'good' despite significant physical disability (eight), or as 'fair' or 'poor' despite minimal disability (seven) were compared to each other, and to a control group of 13 stroke survivors with concordant self-rated health and disability levels. Interviews were conducted 4 to 6 months after stroke and data analysed using the constant comparative method informed by Albrecht and Devlieger's concept of 'disability paradox'. RESULTS: Individuals with 'excellent' or 'good' self-rated health reported a sense of self-reliance and control over their bodies, focussed on their physical rehabilitation and lifestyle changes and reported few bodily and post-stroke symptoms regardless of level of disability. They also frequently described a positive affect and optimism towards recovery. Some, especially those with 'good' self-rated health and significant disability also found meaning from their stroke, reporting a spiritual outlook including practicing daily gratitude and acceptance of limitations. Individuals with minimal disability reporting 'fair' or 'poor' self-rated health on the other hand frequently referred to their post-stroke physical symptoms and comorbidities and indicated anxiety about future recovery. These differences in psychological outlook clustered with differences in perception of relational and social context including support offered by family and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The disability paradox may be illuminated by patterns of individual attributes and relational dynamics observed among stroke survivors. Harnessing these wider understandings can inform new models of post-stroke care for evaluation.

Methods of Implementation of Evidence-Based Stroke Care in Europe: European Implementation Score Collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differences in stroke care and outcomes reported in Europe may reflect different degrees of implementation of evidence-based interventions. We evaluated strategies for implementing research evidence into stroke care in 10 European countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and administered through face-to-face interviews with key informants. Implementation strategies were investigated considering 3 levels (macro, meso, and micro, eg, policy, organization, patients/professionals) identified by the framing analysis, and different settings (primary, hospital, and specialist) of stroke care. Similarities and differences among countries were evaluated using the categorical principal components analysis. RESULTS: Implementation methods reported by ≥7 countries included nonmandatory policies, public financial incentives, continuing professional education, distribution of educational material, educational meetings and campaigns, guidelines, opinion leaders', and stroke patients associations' activities. Audits were present in 6 countries at national level; national and regional regulations in 4 countries. Private financial incentives, reminders, and educational outreach visits were reported only in 2 countries. At national level, the first principal component of categorical principal components analysis separated England, France, Scotland, and Sweden, all with positive object scores, from the other countries. Belgium and Lithuania obtained the lowest scores. At regional level, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden had positive scores in the first principal component, whereas Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, and Scotland showed negative scores. Spain was in an intermediate position. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel method to assess different domains of implementation in stroke care. Clear variations were observed among European countries. The new tool may be used elsewhere for future contributions.