Cited by 443Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Self-Reported Long-Term Needs After Stroke

McKevitt, Christopher, Fudge, Nina, Redfern, Judith, Sheldenkar, Anita, Crichton, Siobhan, Rudd, Anthony R., Forster, Ann, Young, John +4 more·2011·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose—: Development of interventions to manage patients with stroke after discharge from the hospital requires estimates of need. This study estimates the prevalence of self-reported need in community-dwelling stroke survivors across the United Kingdom. Methods—: We conducted a survey of stroke survivors 1 to 5 years poststroke recruited through Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework general practices and 2 population-based stroke registers. Levels and type of need were calculated with comparisons among sociodemographic groups, disability level, and cognitive status using the χ 2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Results—: From 1251 participants, response rates were 60% (national sample) and 78% (population registers sample) with few differences in levels of reported need between the 2 samples. Over half (51%) reported no unmet needs; among the remainder, the median number of unmet needs was 3 (range, 1 to 13). Proportions reporting unmet clinical needs ranged from 15% to 59%; 54% reported an unmet need for stroke information; 52% reported reduction in or loss of work activities, significantly more from black ethnic groups ( P =0.006); 18% reported a loss in income and 31% an increase in expenses with differences by age, ethnic group, and deprivation score. In multivariable analysis, ethnicity ( P =0.032) and disability ( P =0.014) were associated with total number of unmet needs. Conclusions—: Multiple long-term clinical and social needs remain unmet long after incident stroke. Higher levels of unmet need were reported by people with disabilities, from ethnic minority groups, and from those living in the most deprived areas. Development and testing of novel methods to meet unmet needs are required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.110.598839

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are limited intervention options for stroke survivors; almost three-quarters of stroke survivors experiencing emotional distress felt their psychological needs were not being met.

    “Therefore, there are limited intervention options for stroke survivors; yet almost three-quarters of stroke survivors experiencing emotional distress felt their psychological needs were not being met (McKevitt et al., 2011).”

    From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as McKevitt et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKevitt, C., Fudge, N., Redfern, J., Sheldenkar, A., Crichton, S., Rudd, A. R., Forster, A., Young, J., Nazareth, I., Silver, L. E., Rothwell, P. M., & Wolfe, C. D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • From the Division of Health & Social Care Research (C.M., N.F., J.R., A.S., S.C., A.R.R., C.D.A.W.), King's College London, London, UK; the Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation (A.F., J.Y.), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; the Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework (I.N.); and the Prevention Research Unit (L.E.S., P.M.R.), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2011-05
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1398-1403
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2027781300
Cited by
443
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
17.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1128, NF-SI-0510-10060, RP-PG-0407-10184, RP-PG-0606-1146)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
stroke survivors, unmet needs, community-dwelling stroke survivors, post-discharge care, work disability, income loss, social deprivation, ethnic minority disparities, disability, cognitive status
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disability Evaluation, Female, United Kingdom, Health Surveys, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Middle Aged, Social Class, Stroke, Racial Groups, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review