4.2 Article

Knowledge of Stroke Symptoms and Treatment among Community Residents in Western Urban China

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1216-1224

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.10.019

关键词

Stroke; emergency; warning signs; awareness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prehospital delay is still now the main barrier in receiving acute stroke therapy. Increase public awareness of stroke warning signs may help to activate emergency medical services and reduce prehospital delay. Our objectives were to survey the recognition of stroke warning signs among residents of Yuzhong District in Chongqing, China, and determine the proportion of these residents who would make an emergency call (120, in China) if suddenly faced with unexpected stroke warning signs and analyze the relationship between recognition of stroke warning signs and the response of calling for emergency assistance. Methods: In 2011, a population-based face-to-face interview survey using a multistage sampling method was conducted in Yuzhong District, Chongqing. We assessed residents' recognition of stroke warning signs and the proportion of those who would call the emergency number, 120, if suddenly encountering unexpected stroke warning signs. The association between the knowledge of stroke warning signs and activation of 120 was examined. Results: A total of 1101 participants completed the questionnaire. Only 15.6% of respondents knew all 5 stroke warning signs; 17.6% reported that they would call 120 for all 5 stroke warning signs. Recognition of stroke warning signs was associated with the response of calling 120 (odds ratios, 1.92-3.34). Even among those who knew all 5 warning signs of stroke, only 35.5% (95% confidence interval, 28.3-42.6) would call 120 for all 5 signs. Conclusions: Residents of the examined district in Chongqing exhibited low recognition of stroke warning signs and low awareness of appropriate emergency responses to stroke-related symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据