4.5 Article

Awareness of stroke risk in chagasic stroke patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 263, 期 1-2, 页码 35-39

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.05.022

关键词

American trypanosomiasis; awareness; Chagas' disease; health education; risk factors; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reduction in stroke risk may depend on the general population's knowledge of stroke. In South America, chagasic myocardiopathy is independently associated with ischemic stroke. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate awareness of Chagas' disease ( CD) as a stroke risk factor and to determine the frequency of stroke patients that are diagnosed as having CD after stroke. Methods: Eighty CD stroke patients and 140 non-chagasic stroke patients (53.2% males; mean age 60 years), consecutively admitted to the hospital during 2005 were interviewed with a questionnaire. Demographic variables included age, sex, ethnicity, education, previous history of stroke, vascular risk factors, social background information and several questions regarding awareness of CD as a stroke risk factor. A logistic regression model was developed to identify social variables that could predict the risk of CD stroke. Results: The diagnosis of CD was established after stroke in 42.5% of CD stroke patients. Most respondents (95%) were not aware of stroke risk in CD. Chagasic patients had the lowest rate of awareness about stroke risk (2.5 vs 7.1%), although they had the greatest knowledge about the kissing bug vector (83.7 vs 62.1%; p < 0.001). The main social variables associated with CD stroke were: having family members with Chagas' disease ( p < 0.0001; odds ratio 10.1; 95% CI 3.6-16.1) and a past history of living in a mud-brick house during childhood ( p < 0.001; odds ratio 8.9; 95% CI: 4.1-24.6). Conclusion: Awareness about CD as a risk factor of stroke is low. Educational campaigns about risk of stroke in CD patients are encouraged. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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