4.4 Article

Exploring the experience of post-stroke fatigue in community dwelling stroke survivors: a prospective qualitative study

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 34, Issue 16, Pages 1376-1384

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2011.645111

Keywords

Fatigue; qualitative; rehabilitation; stroke; stroke outcomes

Categories

Funding

  1. John Hunter Hospital Charitable Trust
  2. Barker Scholarship
  3. Hunter Stroke Service
  4. University of Newcastle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To explore the experience of post-stroke fatigue in community-dwelling stroke survivors with and without post-stroke mood disturbance within one year of stroke. Methods: This was a prospective qualitative cohort study including semistructured interviews undertaken at baseline (stroke onset), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months in 23 stroke survivors; eight single interviews were held with supplementary participants. Qualitative data analysis involved an inductive thematic approach using a process of constant comparison. Results: Thirty-one participants (17 men, 14 women; age range 37-94 years) took part in 122 interviews. The majority of participants was independent and experienced few major depressive symptoms. Three trajectories emerged regarding the participants' experiences of fatigue including experience of fatigue, coping strategies and knowledge. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that in spite of reasonable objective physical recovery post-stroke, fatigue in community-dwelling stroke survivors may be disabling. The use of qualitative methodology was sensitive in identifying the factors that play a role in the experience of fatigue. The essential role of health professionals in this context is to provide support and education regarding fatigue and to promote participation after stroke in therapy programs. Routine practice for stroke services should include fatigue advice prior to discharge.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available