4.4 Article

Call for human contact and support: an interview study exploring patients' experiences with inpatient stroke rehabilitation and their perception of nurses' and nurse assistants' roles and functions

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 396-404

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1393698

关键词

Qualitative study; neurology; rehabilitation; nursing; stroke; vulnerability

资金

  1. Novo Nordic Foundation
  2. Tommerhandler Johannes Fogs Fond
  3. Research Council Glostrup Hospital
  4. Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup Denmark
  5. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF14OC0011717] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To describe patients' experiences with inpatient stroke rehabilitation and their perception of nurses' and nurse assistants' roles and functions during hospitalisation. Materials and methods: In a qualitative study, 10 interviews with stroke patients were conducted, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: The patients' experiences with inpatient stroke rehabilitation and their perception of nurses' and nurse assistants' roles and functions during hospitalisation were found to be related to one overall theme derived from 10 categories. As a recurring motif in the patients' interviews, they experienced existential thoughts, and these thoughts unquestionably affected their experiences within the rehabilitation unit. These thoughts enhanced their need for human contact, thereby affecting their relationships with and perceptions of the nursing staff. Conclusion: The findings deepen our understanding of how patients experience inpatient rehabilitation. The patients struggled with existential thoughts and concerns about the future and therefore called for human contact and support from the nursing staff. They perceived the nursing staff as mostly polite and helpful, but were unclear about the nursing staff's function in rehabilitation which, in the patients' perspective, equals physical training.

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

4.4
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