(Stroke. 2000;31:1230.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Stroke Knowledge Among Stroke Support Group Members
From the Department of Neurology (B.M.W., J.H., A.R., S.B., S.V., E.B.R.) and the Institute for Epidemiology and Social Medicine (B.M.W.), University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Correspondence to Birgitta M. Weltermann, MD, MPH, Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Muenster, Domagkstraße 3, 48129 Muenster, Germany. E-mail bwelter{at}uni-muenster.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—Community stroke education is needed to improve early stroke recognition and reduce delays in the referral of stroke patients. In some regions, stroke support groups are important promoters of regional stroke education. However, there are no data about the level of stroke knowledge among support group members that support this promotional role.
Methods—We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire survey among 11 German stroke support groups. The questionnaire asked for stroke knowledge and sociodemographic and medical data. Stroke knowledge was excellent if a participant knew (1) at least 2 stroke symptoms (good symptom knowledge) and (2) at least 2 stroke risk factors (good risk factor knowledge), as well as knowing (3) that immediate hospital admission or an emergency call is necessary in case of stroke (good action knowledge).
Results—A total of 133 members (96.2%) of 11 stroke support groups took part in the study. Mean age was 65.3 years (SD 11.2 years). Fifty-four percent of subjects were female, 72.8% were retired, and 69.8% were stroke patients. Of the participants, 80.3% had good symptom knowledge, 64.7% had good risk factor knowledge, and 79.7% had good action knowledge. Stroke knowledge was excellent in 44.0% of subjects. Logistic regression analysis showed that age <70 years and not having had a stroke were significant predictors for excellent stroke knowledge.
Conclusions—Overall, members of stroke support groups are well informed about all aspects of modern stroke care. Because of their knowledge and personal experience, support groups should be viewed as important partners in community stroke education.
Key Words: health education • knowledge, attitudes, practice • peer groups • self-help groups
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Community stroke education is needed to reduce delays in the presentation and referral of stroke patients.1 2 3 4 5 In some regions, stroke support groups have become important promoters of stroke educational programs.6 Because members of these groups, typically stroke patients and their families, have a strong interest in stroke as a health topic, they can be considered to represent laypersons with a high level of stroke knowledge. Although stroke knowledge has been found to be insufficient in acute stroke patients, high-stroke-risk populations, and the general population,2 4 5 there are no data about information status among members of stroke support groups.
Using a cross-sectional questionnaire survey, we asked members of stroke support groups about their knowledge of stroke symptoms, risk factors, and actions required in case of a stroke. Various sociodemographic characteristics were studied as predictors for stroke knowledge.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Population and Sampling Strategy
We selected 15 of the 30 stroke support groups from the Northrhine-Westfalian area of Germany listed in an official support group directory of the German Stroke Foundation. We first selected all groups within 60 km driving distance from the university hospital in Muenster (6 groups). Next, we made a random selection of 9 groups from the remaining 24 using a random number generator. All 15 groups were contacted by phone and informed about the survey. Four groups did not participate: 2 groups had a busy schedule for the upcoming months, 1 group with severely aphasic patients felt that a written questionnaire was beyond their abilities; and 1 group could not be reached in 3 separate attempts. The survey was performed at a regular meeting of each support group in the summer of 1998 without any specific previous information about the survey instrument. To establish personal relationships with the groups in the area, members of our investigator team personally visited the groups in the greater Muenster area, while the other groups received verbal (by phone) and written instructions for the survey. Each member was asked to fill out 1 questionnaire with no support other than writing assistance if necessary. The numbers of participants and nonparticipants for each group were recorded.
Survey Instrument
The structured, self-applicable questionnaire addressed stroke
knowledge (9 items) and sociodemographic and medical characteristics
(13 items). The questionnaire was developed from an instrument used by
Kothari and coworkers from the University of Cincinnati to study
patients’ stroke knowledge.4
Questions Assessing Stroke Knowledge
Using open questions, we asked participants to list stroke
symptoms, risk factors, and the body part affected in stroke. In closed
questions, appropriate actions in case of stroke symptoms and the
critical 3-hour time interval were addressed. According to our
definition, a participant had excellent stroke knowledge if all of the
following 3 criteria were met: (1) participant knew at least 2 stroke
symptoms (good symptom knowledge), (2) participant knew at least 2
stroke risk factors (good risk factor knowledge), and (3) participant
knew that immediate hospital admission or an emergency call to 911 is
necessary in case of stroke (good action knowledge).
Additionally, the following sociodemographic and medical characteristics were assessed: age, sex, current living situation, marital status, education, current or last profession, self-assessment of general health (good, fair, or poor), regularity of physician visits, membership status in the stroke support group (stroke patient, family member of stroke patient, or other), interest in additional stroke education, and preferred information modes. Stroke patients among the group members were asked to describe their current functional status using criteria derived from the modified Rankin scale: independent in daily activities, able to walk but needs support in daily activities, or unable to walk and needs support in daily activities.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS
software package (SPSS for Windows version 8.0, SPSS Corporation).
Comparisons of categorical data were based on the
2 test. If subgroups contained fewer than 10
counts per group, Fisher’s exact test was used for analysis.
Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios
of various sociodemographic indicators for excellent stroke knowledge.
Univariate analyses for the following variables
were performed: education, professional status, age, sex, physician
consulting behavior, self-support group membership status, history of
stroke, marital status, self-reported health status, and interest in
stroke education. All variables reaching statistical significance
in the univariate analysis were included in the
final multivariate logistic regression model.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Biographic Data
A total of 133 members of the 11 stroke support groups took part, for a participation rate of 96.2%. Mean age was 65.3 years (SD 11.2 years). Of the participants, 54.2% were women and 72.8% were retired. Nearly seventy percent (69.8%) were stroke patients, and 27.8% were family members. In stroke patients, the time since the stroke event varied between 0 and 22 years. Additional stroke education was of interest to 90.2% of the population. The following educational modes were preferred (several options per person were possible): support group (84.7%), brochure (34.2%), physician (31.5%), television (29.7%), and newspaper (20.0%). The distribution of other sociodemographic and medical variables is listed in Table 1
.
|
Stroke Knowledge
When asked for the body part affected by a stroke, 52.4% listed
the brain or head. More than 85% (86.6%) knew that stroke therapy is
best started within 3 hours. The average number of stroke symptoms
known was 2.7 (SD 1.7): 9.8% did not know any stroke symptom, whereas
9.8% recalled 1, 28.8% recalled 2, 28.0% recalled 3, and 23.5%
named 4 or more symptoms. Similarly, the average number of risk factors
listed was 2.5 (SD 1.7). No risk factor was recalled by 11.3%, 1 by
24.1%, 2 by 16.5%, 3 by 19.5%, and 4 or more by 28.6%.
Approximately 80% had good symptom knowledge, 64.7% had good risk
factor knowledge, and 79.7% had good action knowledge. Excellent
stroke knowledge was demonstrated by 44.0% of subjects; details are
provided in Tables 2 and 3.
|
|
With regard to sociodemographic characteristics, patients with
excellent stroke knowledge were significantly more likely to be younger
(
70 years old), to be in the stroke support group as a family member
or volunteer, and not to have had a stroke.
Factors Influencing Stroke Knowledge
Good symptom knowledge was found significantly more frequently
among participants <70 years of age (86.3% versus 69.6%,
P=0.022), those with a self-reported health status of good
or fair (86.8% versus 45.5%, P=0.005), those who had not
had a stroke (90.2% versus 75.3%, P=0.037), and those
interested in additional stroke education (83.6% versus 58.3%,
P=0.049). Good risk factor knowledge was significantly more
likely among those who had not had a stroke (80.5% versus 57.0%,
P=0.010), those interested in obtaining additional
information from their physician (80.0% versus 57.9%,
P=0.032), participants living with their family versus those
living alone or in a nursing home (73.3% versus 46.0%,
P=0.005), family members or other volunteers versus stroke
patients (relatives 82.9%, other members 100%, patients 58.0%;
P=0.007), and participants 70 years of age (74.1% versus
45.7%; P=0.007). Good action knowledge was significantly
more likely among participants with a self-reported health status of
good or fair (83.2% versus 50.0%, P=0.025). Excellent
stroke knowledge was significantly more likely among those participants
who reported their health status as being fair or better (48.5% versus
10.0%, P=0.022), those who were 70 years old (52.6 versus
27.3%, P=0.007), those who were volunteers or family
members (62.1% versus 33.7%, P=0.001), and those without a
history of stroke (65.8% versus 33.3%, P=0.001).
Multivariate logistic regression analysis
showed that excellent stroke knowledge was significantly associated
with age 70 years and not having had a stroke. Detailed results are
listed in Table 4. The other factors
tested (current living situation, marital status, and health
self-perception) did not reach statistical significance.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Stroke Knowledge Among Stroke Support Groups
Our study of 11 stroke support groups showed good stroke knowledge in the majority of participants: 80% knew at least 2 stroke symptoms, and 80% knew to seek immediate professional help in case of stroke symptoms; 65% knew 2 or more risk factors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of stroke knowledge among members of stroke support groups. The high information status demonstrated among these laypersons stands out markedly compared with stroke knowledge of the general population. In 2 recent German studies,7 8 we demonstrated that only 52% of persons of working age and 40% of the retired population knew at least 1 stroke symptom. In contrast, 90% of the stroke support group members knew this much. Likewise, only 78% of the working population and 41% of the geriatric population knew that immediate professional help is necessary in case of stroke symptoms, but 80% of the self-support group members did. Similar results can be found when the data are compared with a recent study about stroke knowledge in the general US population.5 In a representative telephone survey of 2642 inhabitants of the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, Pancioli and coworkers showed that only 57% of the general population knew 1 stroke sign, and 68% could name at least 1 stroke risk factor. Because members of stroke support groups showed better knowledge than the German as well as the US general population, our findings cannot be explained by cultural or medical system differences but reflect a difference due to the stroke experience.
Stroke Knowledge Differs Within Support Groups
Support groups for patients of various diseases, such as breast
cancer and coronary artery disease, have been shown to be
important sources for emotional support, disease-related information,
and public education.9 10 11 Better coping skills and
reduced caregiver burden have been demonstrated among patients and
caregivers with better support systems.12 13 14
Traditionally, support groups are organized regionally, as were those
in our survey. More recently, Internet-based support groups have
arisen.10 Stroke has been called a disease affecting
families; for example, disabilities of patients lead to increased
responsibilities with significant role changes for other family
members.15 16 17 18 Our analysis revealed that family
members or nonaffected volunteers had significantly better knowledge
than stroke patients themselves, which likely is the result of various
factors. First, we observed that stroke patients tended to tell us
their personal story when completing the questionnaire, whereas family
members tended to also remember stroke stories of other people they had
met. Second, the results are likely influenced by the functional
impairments among stroke patients with regard to neuropsychological,
language, and motor skills, although writing assistance was offered.
Third, within stroke families, the long-term caregivers are the ones
who typically manage not only daily life but also disease-related
issues.15 16 17 18 For example, they are often very active in
gathering information about new therapeutic and rehabilitation
approaches. Interestingly, with just 2 exceptions, the groups surveyed
were led by family members of stroke patients or, in 2 cases, stroke
care professionals. In contrast to other diseases, strokes often
tragically affect socializing abilities. Our survey only addressed
knowledge about acute stroke care. However, we would like to emphasize
that stroke patients and their caregivers have enormous experience and
knowledge about the problems of long-term care, rehabilitation efforts,
and coping strategies.12 13 14 15 16 17 18 To keep the instrument short,
these aspects were not addressed in our survey.
Perspectives and Conclusions
Our survey demonstrates that members of stroke support groups have
good knowledge about stroke. These findings support approaches to
integrating stroke support groups into regional stroke education
programs. Building regional partnerships, clinical stroke experts and
stroke support groups should work together to better inform the public
about stroke.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We would like to thank the members of the stroke self-support groups of Ahlen, Bielefeld, Bocholt, Bottrop, Castrop-Rauxel, Dortmund, Kamp-Lintfort, Moenchengladbach, Muenster (2 groups), Osnabrueck, and Wuppertal (all in Germany) for their kind participation in our survey. Also, we thank Rashmi Kothari, MD, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, for supporting us with his questionnaire and Klaus Berger, MD, MPH, MSc, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany, for his review of the manuscript.
Received September 24, 1999; revision received March 2, 2000; accepted March 16, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Spilker JA. The importance of patient and public education in acute ischemic stroke. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Rapid Identification and Treatment of Acute Stroke. Washington, DC: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 1996:73–78.
2.
Williams LS, Bruno A, Rouch D, Marriott DJ. Stroke
patients’ knowledge of stroke: influence on time to
presentation. Stroke. 1997;28:912–915.
3.
Barsan WG, Brott TG, Broderick JP, Haley EC, Levy DE,
Marler JR. Time of hospital presentation in patients with
acute stroke. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:2558–2561.
4.
Kothari R, Sauerbeck L, Jauch E, Broderick J, Brott T,
Khoury J, Liu T. Patients’ awareness of stroke signs, symptoms, and
risk factors. Stroke. 1997;28:1871–1875.
5.
Pancioli AM, Broderick J, Kothari R, Brott T,
Tuchfarber A, Miller R, Khoury J, Jauch E. Public perception of stroke
warning signs and knowledge of potential risk factors. JAMA. 1998;279:1288–1292.
6. Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: Assessment, Referral, and Patient Management: Clinical Practice Guidelines Quick Reference Guide for Clinicians. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. 1995;16:1–32.
7. Weltermann BM, Berger K, Rogalewski A, Homann J, Schulte H, Assmann G, Ringelstein B. Knowledge about stroke in a German occupational cohort [in German]. Aktuelle Neurol. 1999;26:V87. Abstract.
8. Weltermann BM, Homann J, Puellen R. Stroke risk awareness among high-risk elderly [in German]. Aktuelle Neurol. 1999;26:P397. Abstract.
9. Anderson D, Deshaies G, Jobin J. Social support, social networks and coronary artery disease rehabilitation: a review. Can J Cardiol. 1996;12:739–744.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Fernsler JI, Manchester LJ. Evaluation of a computer-based cancer support network. Cancer Pract. 1997;5:46–51.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Feenberg AL, Licht JM, Kane KP, Moran K, Smith RA. The online patient meeting. J Neurol Sci. 1996;139:129–131.
12. Gregory CM. Caring for caregivers: proactive planning eases burdens on caregivers. AWHONN Lifelines. 1997;1:51–53.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Printz-Feddersen V. Group process effect on caregiver burden. J Neurosci Nurs. 1990;22:164–168.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Hackl M, Hozner B, Gunther V, Saltuari L. Care of stroke patients by relatives: social support and coping strategies. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1997;122:669–675.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Robinson-Smith G, Mahoney C. Coping and marital equilibrium after stroke. J Neurosci Nurs. 1995;27:83–89.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Exall K, Johnston H. Caring for carers coping with stroke. Nurs Times. 1999;95:50–51.
17. Evans RL, Hendricks RD, Haselkorn JK, Bishop DS, Baldwin D. The family’s role in stroke rehabilitation: a review of the literature. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;71:135–139.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Backer G, Christensen PH. Self-help groups: experiences with families of patients with apoplexy. Ugeskr Laeger. 1992;154:858–864.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. Billings-Gagliardi and K. M. Mazor Development and Validation of the Stroke Action Test Stroke, May 1, 2005; 36(5): 1035 - 1039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Reeves, J. G. Hogan, and A. P. Rafferty Knowledge of stroke risk factors and warning signs among Michigan adults Neurology, November 26, 2002; 59(10): 1547 - 1552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||