4.7 Article

Trends in community knowledge of the warning signs and risk factors for stroke

Journal

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 289, Issue 3, Pages 343-346

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.3.343

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS30678-04] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context Poor public knowledge of stroke warning signs and risk factors limits effective stroke intervention and prevention. Objective To examine temporal trends in public knowledge of stroke warning signs and risk factors. Design and Setting Population-based random-digit telephone survey conducted in July-November 2000 among individuals in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio, region. Participants A total of 2173 survey respondents (69% response rate) were randomly identified based on their demographic similarities to the ischemic stroke population with regard to age, race, and sex. Main Outcome Measures Spontaneous recall of at least 1 important stroke warning sign and 1 established stroke risk factor in comparison with findings from the same survey in 1995. Results In 2000, 70% of respondents correctly named at least 1 established stroke warning sign vs 57% in 1995 (P<.001), and 72% correctly named at least 1 established stroke risk factor vs 68% in 1995. Groups of individuals with the highest risk and incidence of stroke, such as persons at least 75 years old, blacks, and men, were the least knowledgeable about warning signs and risk factors. Television was the most frequently cited source of knowledge, 32% in 2000 vs 24% in 1995 (P<.001). Conclusions Public knowledge of stroke warning signs within the greater Cincinnati region has significantly improved from 1995 to 2000, although knowledge of stroke risk factors did not improve significantly during the same time period. Public education efforts must continue and should focus on groups at the highest risk of stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available