22. European Stroke Conference 772 © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel Scientific Programme Table 1. Spearman correlations between glycaemia level (mg/dL) and USN by LBT Line Bisection Test % Mean of absolute devi-ation Number of deviations to the right % Mean of de-viations to the right % Mean of devi-ations to the left r 0.02 -0.35 -0.35 0.35 p 0.950 0.133 0.133 0.133 n 26 26 26 26 r – Spearman correlation value; p – value associated to Spearman correlation; n – number of individ-uals 808 Rehabilitation and reorganisation after stroke Patients’ and health professionals’ views of self-management: systematic review and narrative synthesis E.A. Sadler1, C.D.A. Wolfe2, C. McKevitt3 King’s College London, London, UNITED KINGDOM1, King’s College London and NIHR Bio-medical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College Lon-don, London, UNITED KINGDOM2, King’s College London and NIHR Biomedical Research Cen-tre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UNITED KINGDOM3 Background Self-management (SM) interventions teach individuals strategies to manage the long term con-sequences of health conditions, and are proposed as one way to meet stroke survivors’ long term needs. However, there is mixed evidence that such interventions work. This may be due to differenc-es in patients’ and health professionals’ (HP) views regarding SM, but this has not been confirmed through a systematic review. This study aimed to review patients and HP views of SM after stroke and other long term conditions (LTC). Methods We systematically reviewed the literature for qualitative studies of patients and HP views of SM af-ter stroke and other LTC. Relevant databases were searched from inception to 05/12. Inclusion cri-teria: English language, peer reviewed publications. Data from papers was extracted using a matrix to record purpose, methods, results and quality criteria. Two authors analysed themes using narrative synthesis. Results 91 papers were included. HP viewed SM as involving psychological strategies to help people to cope with their LTC. Patients also saw SM as involving psychological strategies, but emphasised the importance of personal choice and control to their SM. All HP saw SM as something that could be taught, but noted they lacked training in how to do so. Therapists and nurses also emphasised the importance of collaborative relationships to help patients acquire SM skills. Patients agreed collabo-rative relationships were important, but they also noted barriers to successful SM, including lack of social support, poor relationships with HP and coping with co-morbid conditions. Conclusion HP and patients shared an understanding of SM as involving psychological strategies to cope with LTC. HP did not note the same barriers to SM as patients did. Interventions to promote SM should help patients exercise choice and control over managing their LTC. HP should acknowledge pa-tients’ barriers to SM and support them to overcome these.
Karger_ESC London_2013
To see the actual publication please follow the link above