Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31518369›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Maintaining hope after a disabling stroke: A longitudinal qualitative study of patients' experiences, views, information needs and approaches towards making treatment decisions.

Akila Visvanathan, Gillian Mead, Martin Dennis, William Whiteley, Fergus Doubal, Julia Lawton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Information provision for stroke survivors and their carers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Akila VisvanathanCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9713-8713
Gillian MeadCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Martin DennisCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
William WhiteleyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Fergus DoubalCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Julia LawtonUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CAF/16/01Chief Scientist Office SCAF/17/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome treatments after a disabling stroke increase the likelihood patients will survive longer but with significant disability. Patients and doctors should make collaborative decisions regarding these treatments. However, this can be challenging. To better understand treatment decision-making in acute disabling stroke, we explored the experiences, views and needs of stroke survivors in hospital and six months later.

methodsFifteen patients who had a disabling stroke were interviewed within a week of their diagnosis; eleven were re-interviewed six months later. Data were analysed thematically and longitudinally.

resultsPatients' functional abilities prior to their stroke and need for hope of functional recovery appeared to impact on their involvement in decision-making. In the early period post stroke, patients who were functionally independent pre- stroke described being emotionally devastated and ill-prepared for the consequences of stroke. They appeared unaware that treatments offered might extend their life but with significant disability and took all treatments in the hope of functional recovery. Those who were dependent pre-stroke appeared to be more stoic, had considered treatment implications and decided against such treatments. At follow-up, all patients had varying unmet psychological needs which appeared to contribute to poor quality of life. In the early period post stroke, patients looked for various ways to cultivate and maintain hope of functional recovery. While patients continued to look for hope at six months, they also reported wishing they had been given realistic information in the early period after stroke in order to prepare for the consequences.

conclusionStroke survivors may benefit from psychological support. A collaborative approach towards treatment decision-making may not be realistic in all patients especially when they may be emotionally distressed and looking to maintain a positive outlook. Communication strategies to balance maintaining hope without providing false hope may be appropriate. Patients' information needs may need reassessed at different time points.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHopeHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeStrokeStroke RehabilitationSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID31518369
PMCPMC6743774
OpenAlexW2972673722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.