4.6 Article

Accounts of preventative coping: an interview study of stroke survivors on general practice registers

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 12, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058441

Keywords

Stroke; CARDIOLOGY; REHABILITATION MEDICINE

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research [PTC-RP-PG-0213-20001]
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PTC-RP-PG-0213-20001] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the role of individual responsibility and self-concept in preventative coping behavior among stroke survivors. The findings highlight the need for a better understanding of how self-perception influences coping efforts.
Objectives Preventative coping is an underexplored aspect of coping behaviour. Specifically, coping is a key concern in stroke survivor accounts, but this has yet to be investigated with reference to secondary prevention. Design Secondary analysis of a qualitative data set comprising semistructured interviews of 22 stroke survivors recruited from five general practices in the East of England. The topic guide included exploration of advice and support given by their doctor on medication and lifestyle. The interviews were coded using thematic analysis. Results The accounts emphasised individual responsibility. Two key themes were identified, which foregrounded the role of self-concept for coping: (a) striving to be 'good', (b) appeal to ideas of 'personality'. In the former, preventative behaviour was depicted in moralistic terms, with the doctor as an adjudicator. In the latter, participants attributed their coping behaviour to their personality, which might help or hinder these efforts. Conclusions We highlight that coping was characterised by survivors as something enacted by the individual self, and consider how constructions of self may impact preventative coping efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available