Author
Listed:
- Alice Le Bonniec
- Julie Haesebaert
- Laurent Derex
- Sylvie Porthault
- Marie Préau
- Anne-Marie Schott
Abstract
Background: Despite national and local French information campaigns, when acute stroke occurs, waiting times before calling mobile emergency medical services (EMS) to receive appropriate treatment (i.e. thrombolysis) and decrease the risk of physical disability, remain long. We aimed to identify the representations of stroke in the general population and to determine barriers to and facilitators for rapidly contacting EMS. Method: We conducted a qualitative study among the general population with 10 focus groups, 5 comprising employed people (N = 29) and 5 comprising retirees (N = 32). The themes discussed were general knowledge about stroke and its risk factors, symptoms, appropriate management and the awareness that stroke is an emergency issue. Results: In addition to a lack of knowledge about stroke, other barriers to rapidly contacting the EMS were difficulties in recognizing symptoms and understanding that these symptoms constitute an emergency. Furthermore, when faced with stroke, a feeling of inevitability and fatalism about the consequences of a stroke was highlighted. Participants were unaware of the existence of an effective treatment and they mistrusted medical competences. Finally, we found a strong presence and participant appreciation of common knowledge, resulting in the sharing of experiences of stroke. This could partly compensate for the lack of specific knowledge about symptom recognition and appropriate action. Conclusion: Information campaigns should not only inform the public about stroke symptoms in order to ensure people act appropriately, but should also focus on increasing public awareness about the fact that an effective treatment exists.
Suggested Citation
Alice Le Bonniec & Julie Haesebaert & Laurent Derex & Sylvie Porthault & Marie Préau & Anne-Marie Schott, 2016.
"Why Patients Delay Their First Contact with Health Services After Stroke? A Qualitative Focus Group-Based Study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0156933
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156933
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0156933. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.