4.2 Article

Rehabilitation Experts' Experience of Community Rehabilitation Services for Stroke Survivors in Iran

期刊

TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 395-404

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1905-395

关键词

community rehabilitation services; experts' experiences; Iran; stroke survivors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Successful stroke rehabilitation is a complex process involving teamwork by members of several professions. The aims of this study were to explore the experiences of Iranian rehabilitation experts concerning community rehabilitation services for stroke survivors and obtain their opinions on how to further develop and improve these services. Method: A qualitative research method with grounded theory was used, including purposive and theoretical sampling. A constant comparative analysis was conducted. Data were gathered from 2 focus group discussions including 10 Iranian rehabilitation experts and 4 in-depth individual interviews. Results: Nonintegrated rehabilitation services emerged as the core concept of the study. The explored concepts were identified as deficiently allocated budget, inadequate public insurance, lack of availability of rehabilitative care, negative public opinion, lack of consistency in care, and split services and professional separation. Areas identified for potential improvement included need to change policymakers' attitudes, need to refine rehabilitation in the health care system, need to establish a registration system, need to provide information and skills, and need to see the family as a whole. Conclusion: Experts should participate in educational rehabilitation programs to become more aware of current rehabilitation services within the community. Stroke survivors and their families should also participate in the rehabilitation programs as this would allow them to gain knowledge and skills for dealing with stroke management. This can help reduce problems, change public opinion, and eliminate mistrust between health care providers and families.

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