The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

What underlies the difference between self-reported health and disability after stroke? A qualitative study in the UK

What underlies the difference between self-reported health and disability after stroke? A qualitative study in the UK
What underlies the difference between self-reported health and disability after stroke? A qualitative study in the UK
Background: Levels of self-reported health do not always correlate with levels of physical disability in stroke survivors. We aimed to explore what underlies the difference between subjective self-reported health and objectively measured disability among stroke survivors. Methods: Face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors recruited from a stroke clinic or rehabilitation ward in the UK. Fifteen stroke survivors purposively sampled from the clinic who had discordant self-rated health and levels of disability i.e. reported health as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ despite significant physical disability (eight), or as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ despite minimal disability (seven) were compared to each other, and to a control group of 13 stroke survivors with concordant self-rated health and disability levels. Interviews were conducted 4 to 6 months after stroke and data analysed using the constant comparative method informed by Albrecht and Devlieger’s concept of ‘disability paradox’. Results: Individuals with ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ self-rated health reported a sense of self-reliance and control over their bodies, focussed on their physical rehabilitation and lifestyle changes and reported few bodily and post-stroke symptoms regardless of level of disability. They also frequently described a positive affect and optimism towards recovery. Some, especially those with ‘good’ self-rated health and significant disability also found meaning from their stroke, reporting a spiritual outlook including practicing daily gratitude and acceptance of limitations. Individuals with minimal disability reporting ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ self-rated health on the other hand frequently referred to their post-stroke physical symptoms and comorbidities and indicated anxiety about future recovery. These differences in psychological outlook clustered with differences in perception of relational and social context including support offered by family and healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The disability paradox may be illuminated by patterns of individual attributes and relational dynamics observed among stroke survivors. Harnessing these wider understandings can inform new models of post-stroke care for evaluation.
Stroke self-reported health quality of life disability
1471-2377
Mavaddat, Nahal
ee2ed7df-0913-4da7-85e0-aa9f974018a9
Sadler, Euan
e5891abe-c97b-4e74-b9b3-6d7c43435360
Lim, Lisa
2cfe0a65-6b4e-40ef-98f6-08e4f97224cb
Williams, Kate
9204d09f-ffcf-4c97-b5be-2f535a898414
Warburton, Elizabeth
726e99a1-66e4-4233-97be-058825995428
Kinmonth, Ann Louise
0bf25ce1-e62c-4941-9d2b-49500dc15f1b
McKevitt, Chris
1bbbfe94-080a-4f69-9a66-dd4aee542ab1
Mant, Jonathan
cb9dbdd7-7e9a-43e3-b977-266ad88a082f
Mavaddat, Nahal
ee2ed7df-0913-4da7-85e0-aa9f974018a9
Sadler, Euan
e5891abe-c97b-4e74-b9b3-6d7c43435360
Lim, Lisa
2cfe0a65-6b4e-40ef-98f6-08e4f97224cb
Williams, Kate
9204d09f-ffcf-4c97-b5be-2f535a898414
Warburton, Elizabeth
726e99a1-66e4-4233-97be-058825995428
Kinmonth, Ann Louise
0bf25ce1-e62c-4941-9d2b-49500dc15f1b
McKevitt, Chris
1bbbfe94-080a-4f69-9a66-dd4aee542ab1
Mant, Jonathan
cb9dbdd7-7e9a-43e3-b977-266ad88a082f

Mavaddat, Nahal, Sadler, Euan, Lim, Lisa, Williams, Kate, Warburton, Elizabeth, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, McKevitt, Chris and Mant, Jonathan (2021) What underlies the difference between self-reported health and disability after stroke? A qualitative study in the UK. BMC Neurology, 21 (315), [315]. (doi:10.1186/s12883-021-02338-x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Levels of self-reported health do not always correlate with levels of physical disability in stroke survivors. We aimed to explore what underlies the difference between subjective self-reported health and objectively measured disability among stroke survivors. Methods: Face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors recruited from a stroke clinic or rehabilitation ward in the UK. Fifteen stroke survivors purposively sampled from the clinic who had discordant self-rated health and levels of disability i.e. reported health as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ despite significant physical disability (eight), or as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ despite minimal disability (seven) were compared to each other, and to a control group of 13 stroke survivors with concordant self-rated health and disability levels. Interviews were conducted 4 to 6 months after stroke and data analysed using the constant comparative method informed by Albrecht and Devlieger’s concept of ‘disability paradox’. Results: Individuals with ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ self-rated health reported a sense of self-reliance and control over their bodies, focussed on their physical rehabilitation and lifestyle changes and reported few bodily and post-stroke symptoms regardless of level of disability. They also frequently described a positive affect and optimism towards recovery. Some, especially those with ‘good’ self-rated health and significant disability also found meaning from their stroke, reporting a spiritual outlook including practicing daily gratitude and acceptance of limitations. Individuals with minimal disability reporting ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ self-rated health on the other hand frequently referred to their post-stroke physical symptoms and comorbidities and indicated anxiety about future recovery. These differences in psychological outlook clustered with differences in perception of relational and social context including support offered by family and healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The disability paradox may be illuminated by patterns of individual attributes and relational dynamics observed among stroke survivors. Harnessing these wider understandings can inform new models of post-stroke care for evaluation.

Text
Mavaddat BMC Neurology Revisions 26-07-21 with figure - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (585kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 29 July 2021
Published date: 13 August 2021
Additional Information: Funding This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research. The funding agency was not involved in the design of the study, collection, analysis or interpretation of data not in writing the manuscript. NM was supported by a Walport Clinical Lectureship in Primary Care Research from the University of Cambridge/National Institute of Health Research. ES and CM were supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, UK. ES is currently supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Wessex. EAW is supported by an NIHR Biomedical Research Grant to Cambridge. JM is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Keywords: Stroke self-reported health quality of life disability

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 450559
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/450559
ISSN: 1471-2377
PURE UUID: e6a42d57-2676-4d29-8e5f-3cbb58c3b282
ORCID for Euan Sadler: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3827-224X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 04 Aug 2021 16:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:56

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Nahal Mavaddat
Author: Euan Sadler ORCID iD
Author: Lisa Lim
Author: Kate Williams
Author: Elizabeth Warburton
Author: Ann Louise Kinmonth
Author: Chris McKevitt
Author: Jonathan Mant

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×