一项定性研究,调查中风幸存者及其家人对讨论中风后认知轨迹的看法。

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-17 DOI:10.1080/09602011.2024.2314882
Georgina Hobden, Eugene Yee Hing Tang, Nele Demeyere
{"title":"一项定性研究,调查中风幸存者及其家人对讨论中风后认知轨迹的看法。","authors":"Georgina Hobden, Eugene Yee Hing Tang, Nele Demeyere","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2024.2314882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive impairment is common early after stroke but trajectories over the long term are variable. Some stroke survivors make a full recovery, while others retain a stable impairment or decline. This study explored the perceived advantages and disadvantages of discussing potential cognitive trajectories with stroke survivors and their family members. Stroke survivors at least six-months post-stroke were purposively sampled from an existing pool of research volunteers recruited originally for the OCS-Recovery study. They were invited, alongside a family member, to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty-six stroke survivors and eleven family members participated. We identified one overarching theme and three related subthemes. The overarching theme was: One size does not fit all. The subthemes were: (1) Hearing about potential cognitive trajectories helps to develop realistic expectations; (2) Discussions about cognitive trajectories may be motivating; (3) Cognitive decline and post-stroke dementia discussions may be anxiety-provoking and depressing. Healthcare professionals should adopt a person-centred approach to sharing information about post-stroke cognitive trajectories. Discussions should be tailored to individual needs and preferences, with dementia-related topics in particular addressed with the utmost selectivity and sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1404-1421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative study investigating the views of stroke survivors and their family members on discussing post-stroke cognitive trajectories.\",\"authors\":\"Georgina Hobden, Eugene Yee Hing Tang, Nele Demeyere\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09602011.2024.2314882\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cognitive impairment is common early after stroke but trajectories over the long term are variable. Some stroke survivors make a full recovery, while others retain a stable impairment or decline. This study explored the perceived advantages and disadvantages of discussing potential cognitive trajectories with stroke survivors and their family members. Stroke survivors at least six-months post-stroke were purposively sampled from an existing pool of research volunteers recruited originally for the OCS-Recovery study. They were invited, alongside a family member, to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty-six stroke survivors and eleven family members participated. We identified one overarching theme and three related subthemes. The overarching theme was: One size does not fit all. The subthemes were: (1) Hearing about potential cognitive trajectories helps to develop realistic expectations; (2) Discussions about cognitive trajectories may be motivating; (3) Cognitive decline and post-stroke dementia discussions may be anxiety-provoking and depressing. Healthcare professionals should adopt a person-centred approach to sharing information about post-stroke cognitive trajectories. Discussions should be tailored to individual needs and preferences, with dementia-related topics in particular addressed with the utmost selectivity and sensitivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1404-1421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2314882\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2314882","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知功能障碍在中风后早期很常见,但长期的发展轨迹却各不相同。一些中风幸存者完全康复,而另一些则保持稳定的损伤或衰退。本研究探讨了与中风幸存者及其家人讨论潜在认知轨迹的利弊。研究人员从现有的研究志愿者库中有目的地抽取了中风后至少六个月的幸存者,这些志愿者最初是为 OCS-Recovery 研究而招募的。他们与一名家庭成员一起被邀请参加半结构化访谈。访谈进行了录音、转录,并使用反思性主题分析法进行了分析。共有 26 名中风幸存者和 11 名家属参加了访谈。我们确定了一个总体主题和三个相关次主题。总主题是不能一刀切。次主题是(1) 了解潜在的认知轨迹有助于形成现实的期望;(2) 关于认知轨迹的讨论可能具有激励作用;(3) 关于认知衰退和中风后痴呆的讨论可能会令人焦虑和沮丧。医护人员在分享有关卒中后认知轨迹的信息时,应采取以人为本的方法。讨论应根据个人的需要和偏好进行,尤其是与痴呆相关的话题,要有最大的选择性和敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A qualitative study investigating the views of stroke survivors and their family members on discussing post-stroke cognitive trajectories.

Cognitive impairment is common early after stroke but trajectories over the long term are variable. Some stroke survivors make a full recovery, while others retain a stable impairment or decline. This study explored the perceived advantages and disadvantages of discussing potential cognitive trajectories with stroke survivors and their family members. Stroke survivors at least six-months post-stroke were purposively sampled from an existing pool of research volunteers recruited originally for the OCS-Recovery study. They were invited, alongside a family member, to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty-six stroke survivors and eleven family members participated. We identified one overarching theme and three related subthemes. The overarching theme was: One size does not fit all. The subthemes were: (1) Hearing about potential cognitive trajectories helps to develop realistic expectations; (2) Discussions about cognitive trajectories may be motivating; (3) Cognitive decline and post-stroke dementia discussions may be anxiety-provoking and depressing. Healthcare professionals should adopt a person-centred approach to sharing information about post-stroke cognitive trajectories. Discussions should be tailored to individual needs and preferences, with dementia-related topics in particular addressed with the utmost selectivity and sensitivity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信