Health promotion interventions post-stroke for improving self-management: A systematic review.
After-stroke
cardiology
female
health promotion
secondary prevention
treatment
Journal
JRSM cardiovascular disease
ISSN: 2048-0040
Titre abrégé: JRSM Cardiovasc Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101598607
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
21
02
2021
revised:
26
02
2021
accepted:
02
03
2021
entrez:
17
5
2021
pubmed:
18
5
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is well-documented that women tend to be worse off post-stroke. They are often frailer, have less independence, lower functionality, increased rates of depression, and overall a lower quality of life. People who have had strokes benefit from rehabilitative support to increase their independence and reduce the risk of stroke reoccurrence. Despite the gender differences in the effects of stroke, interventions explicitly aimed at helping women have not been identified. This systematic review aimed to summarize the effectiveness of the health promoting behavioural interventions for reducing risk factors and improved self-management in women post-stroke, compared to usual care. Seven databases, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsychInfo, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were reviewed for randomized controlled trials covering post-stroke interventions. The following keywords were used: health promotion, secondary prevention, woman, women, female, sex difference, gender difference, after stroke, and post-stroke. Ten randomised controlled trials were found. These demonstrated common successful approaches for rehabilitation, but none specifically described health promotion strategies for women. Core components of successful programs appeared to be a structured approach, tailored to clientele and formalised support systems through their carer, family networks, or community engagement. Comprehensive reminder systems were successful for stroke risk reduction. Women are disproportionately affected by stroke and are often in the frail category. Tailored structured health promotion programs with family and caregiver support combined with a comprehensive reminder system would appear to enable women post-stroke.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is well-documented that women tend to be worse off post-stroke. They are often frailer, have less independence, lower functionality, increased rates of depression, and overall a lower quality of life. People who have had strokes benefit from rehabilitative support to increase their independence and reduce the risk of stroke reoccurrence. Despite the gender differences in the effects of stroke, interventions explicitly aimed at helping women have not been identified.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to summarize the effectiveness of the health promoting behavioural interventions for reducing risk factors and improved self-management in women post-stroke, compared to usual care.
METHOD
METHODS
Seven databases, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsychInfo, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were reviewed for randomized controlled trials covering post-stroke interventions. The following keywords were used: health promotion, secondary prevention, woman, women, female, sex difference, gender difference, after stroke, and post-stroke.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten randomised controlled trials were found. These demonstrated common successful approaches for rehabilitation, but none specifically described health promotion strategies for women. Core components of successful programs appeared to be a structured approach, tailored to clientele and formalised support systems through their carer, family networks, or community engagement. Comprehensive reminder systems were successful for stroke risk reduction.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Women are disproportionately affected by stroke and are often in the frail category. Tailored structured health promotion programs with family and caregiver support combined with a comprehensive reminder system would appear to enable women post-stroke.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33996032
doi: 10.1177/20480040211004416
pii: 10.1177_20480040211004416
pmc: PMC8082985
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
20480040211004416Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Stroke. 2015 Dec;46(12):3451-8
pubmed: 26508749
Health Technol Assess. 2005 May;9(18):iii-iv, 1-79
pubmed: 15890138
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(22):1857-68
pubmed: 24377329
Am Fam Physician. 2005 Oct 15;72(8):1503-10
pubmed: 16273817
Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Oct -Nov;48(2):177-87
pubmed: 12401421
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012 Jul;21(5):358-62
pubmed: 21111631
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016 Aug;23(4):284-92
pubmed: 27077987
Clin Rehabil. 2007 Jun;21(6):511-22
pubmed: 17613582
Stroke. 2006 Dec;37(12):2989-94
pubmed: 17082475
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2018 Nov/Dec;33(6):509-517
pubmed: 29901484
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jul;27(7):659-71
pubmed: 23503738
Neurology. 2010 Nov 2;75(18):1597-607
pubmed: 21041783
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2018 Jun;15(3):197-205
pubmed: 29878691
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(9):795-801
pubmed: 25082472
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Jun;26(6):493-501
pubmed: 22087047
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Jul 30;29(14):1117-27
pubmed: 17612998
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):531-535
pubmed: 29438087
Neurology. 2019 Dec 10;93(24):e2170-e2180
pubmed: 31719135
J Clin Nurs. 2003 Jan;12(1):77-84
pubmed: 12519253
Acta Neurol Scand. 2010 Jun;121(6):359-69
pubmed: 20002005
Stroke. 2018 Feb;49(2):426-432
pubmed: 29284737
Stroke. 2014 May;45(5):1545-88
pubmed: 24503673