4.2 Article

The centrality of work in everyday life after stroke: A qualitative study of long-term stroke survivors

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 539-549

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2023.2170914

Keywords

Cerebrovascular diseases; occupational therapy; return to work; qualitative research; stroke

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the experiences of work and work incapacity among long-term stroke survivors through individual semi-structured interviews. The results highlighted the impact of work on everyday life and the need for a flexible approach in supporting return to work as part of daily life after stroke.
BackgroundWork is an occupation of great concern for younger stroke survivors. Given the high rate of people not working after stroke, there is a need to explore work after stroke from a long-term perspective, including not just an initial return to work, but also the ability to retain employment and how this may affect everyday life after stroke. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore experiences relating to work and to work incapacity among long-term stroke survivors.MethodThis study used thematic analysis on data gathered through individual semi-structured interviews with long-term stroke survivors.ResultsThe analysis resulted in four themes that together comprised the main theme 'The centrality of work in everyday life', containing descriptions of how everyday life was affected by aspects of work both for those who did work and those who did not return to work after stroke.Conclusion and significanceThe results highlight the importance of addressing return to work not just as an isolated outcome but as part of everyday life after stroke. The results indicate a need for a more flexible approach to supporting return to work that continues past the initial return.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available