Latent profile analysis of social participation in stroke survivors with limb dysfunction: a mixed-methods study.
Xuan Zhou, Ying Wang, Lanshu Zhou
PMID 41498602WHAT IT FOUND
Four participation patterns emerged after stroke with limb dysfunction. 43.1% were cautious and 33.3% disengaged.
In interviews, comparing life with the worst period after stroke was linked to rebuilding, while comparing with before stroke was linked to loss.
Key findings
01Four participation patterns were identified: active integration, contented conservatism, cautious conservatism, and alienated disengagement.
02In interviews with 16 stroke survivors, comparing current participation with the worst period after stroke was linked to rebuilding, while comparing with before stroke was linked to loss.
03Compared with Cautious Conservatism, higher resilience and younger age were associated with Active Integration, and lower resilience, poorer physical function, and older age were associated with Alienated Disengagement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was cross-sectional, so it cannot show that resilience, age, or limb function caused the participation patterns. Participants were recruited from Shanghai rehabilitation settings, so the profiles may not match patients in other regions or health systems. People with language communication disorders, cognitive impairment, or severe emotional disorders were excluded, so the results do not cover many stroke survivors. The quantitative results were self-reported, so the same person's perceptions may have influenced both participation and resilience scores. The qualitative sample had 16 participants, with 12 males and 4 females, so it may not represent all experiences. Environmental factors such as community accessibility and social policies were not included in the predictive model. The study did not test an intervention, so it cannot tell therapists whether changing these factors improves participation.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [82202816].
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these profiles as proof that resilience, age, or limb function caused participation patterns. The study was cross-sectional and self-reported, so it shows associations only.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →