4.4 Review

Factors associated with community reintegration in the first year after stroke: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 37, Issue 18-19, Pages 1599-1608

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2014.974834

Keywords

Barriers; community reintegration; facilitators; qualitative; rehabilitation; stroke

Categories

Funding

  1. National Disability Authority (Research Promotion Scheme), Ireland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Although acute stroke care has improved survival, many individuals report dissatisfaction with community reintegration after stroke. The aim of this qualitative meta-synthesis was to examine the barriers and facilitators of community reintegration in the first year after stroke from the perspective of people with stroke. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted. Papers that used qualitative methods to explore the experiences of individuals with stroke around community reintegration in the first year after stroke were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of papers. Themes, concepts and interpretations were extracted from each study, compared and meta-synthesised. Results: From the 18 included qualitative studies four themes related to community reintegration in the first year after stroke were identified: (i) the primary effects of stroke, (ii) personal factors, (iii) social factors and (iv) relationships with professionals. Conclusions: This review suggests that an individual's perseverance, adaptability and ability to overcome emotional challenges can facilitate reintegration into the community despite persisting effects of their stroke. Appropriate support from family, friends, the broader community and healthcare professionals is important. Therapeutic activities should relate to meaningful activities and should be tailored to the individual stroke survivor.

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