↓ Skip to main content

Stroke survivors' and informal caregivers' experiences of primary care and community healthcare services – A systematic review and meta-ethnography

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
181 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
392 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stroke survivors' and informal caregivers' experiences of primary care and community healthcare services – A systematic review and meta-ethnography
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0192533
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominika M. Pindus, Ricky Mullis, Lisa Lim, Ian Wellwood, A. Viona Rundell, Noor Azah Abd Aziz, Jonathan Mant

Abstract

To describe and explain stroke survivors and informal caregivers' experiences of primary care and community healthcare services. To offer potential solutions for how negative experiences could be addressed by healthcare services. Systematic review and meta-ethnography. Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases (literature searched until May 2015, published studies ranged from 1996 to 2015). Primary qualitative studies focused on adult community-dwelling stroke survivors' and/or informal caregivers' experiences of primary care and/or community healthcare services. A set of common second order constructs (original authors' interpretations of participants' experiences) were identified across the studies and used to develop a novel integrative account of the data (third order constructs). Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Relevance was assessed using Dixon-Woods' criteria. 51 studies (including 168 stroke survivors and 328 caregivers) were synthesised. We developed three inter-dependent third order constructs: (1) marginalisation of stroke survivors and caregivers by healthcare services, (2) passivity versus proactivity in the relationship between health services and the patient/caregiver dyad, and (3) fluidity of stroke related needs for both patient and caregiver. Issues of continuity of care, limitations in access to services and inadequate information provision drove perceptions of marginalisation and passivity of services for both patients and caregivers. Fluidity was apparent through changing information needs and psychological adaptation to living with long-term consequences of stroke. Potential limitations of qualitative research such as limited generalisability and inability to provide firm answers are offset by the consistency of the findings across a range of countries and healthcare systems. Stroke survivors and caregivers feel abandoned because they have become marginalised by services and they do not have the knowledge or skills to re-engage. This can be addressed by: (1) increasing stroke specific health literacy by targeted and timely information provision, and (2) improving continuity of care between specialist and generalist services. PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015026602.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 392 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 392 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 8%
Researcher 24 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 6%
Other 63 16%
Unknown 162 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 85 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 14%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Psychology 8 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Other 47 12%
Unknown 168 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#440,642
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,235
of 210,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,618
of 335,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#123
of 3,531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.