4.2 Article

Couples' approaches to changes in everyday life during the first year after stroke

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/11038120903578791

关键词

Occupations; activity; occupational therapy; rehabilitation; CVA; community dwelling; older adults; qualitative; case study; longitudinal

资金

  1. Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists
  2. Association of King Gustaf V: s and Queen Victorias Foundation
  3. Swedish Stroke Association
  4. Vardal Foundation
  5. Stockholm's Sjukhem Foundation
  6. Health Care Sciences Postgraduate School, Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of the study was to identify and describe two couples' approaches to changes in everyday life during the first year after a stroke. An additional aim was to describe how the couples viewed rehabilitation as well as their own personal training relative to changes in everyday life during the first year at home after stroke. Method: The study design was a prospective longitudinal case study based on two couples where one of the spouses in each couple had experienced a stroke. Data collection consisted of interviews and a questionnaire and took place in the participants' homes. Data analysis utilized a constant comparative method. Results: The findings showed a divergence in the couples' approaches to changes in their everyday life at home and were described through the following categorizations: engaging in occupations, getting experience and thereby feedback from doing, changing one's occupational needs and demands, contributing to a picture of a possible future and, integrating training in everyday life. Getting experience and feedback from doing was found to be a key category or driver in the change process. Conclusion: The couples' experiences of changes in everyday life after stroke illustrated two very divergent approaches, which is discussed in the paper. The approaches in turn had consequences for how daily life was spent after stroke which is also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据