Current clinical practice in the screening and diagnosis of spatial neglect post-stroke: findings from a multidisciplinary international surveyShow others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Neuropsychological rehabilitation (Print), ISSN 0960-2011, E-ISSN 1464-0694, Vol. 31, no 9, p. 1495-1526Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
Spatial neglect has profound implications for quality of life after stroke, yet we lack consensus for screening/diagnosing this heterogeneous syndrome. Our first step in a multi-stage research programme aimed to determine which neglect tests are used (within four categories: cognitive, functional, neurological and neuroimaging/neuromodulation), by which stroke clinicians, in which countries, and whether choice is by professional autonomy or institutional policy. 454 clinicians responded to an online survey: 12 professions (e.g., 39% were occupational therapists) from 33 countries (e.g., 38% from the UK). Multifactorial logistic regression suggested inter-professional differences but fewer differences between countries (Italy was an outlier). Cognitive tests were used by 82% (particularly by psychologists, cancellation and drawing were most popular); 80% used functional assessments (physiotherapists were most likely). 20% (mainly physicians, from Italy) used neuroimaging/ neuromodulation. Professionals largely reported clinical autonomy in their choices. Respondents agreed on the need for a combined approach to screening and further training. This study raises awareness of the translation gap between theory and practice. These findings lay an important foundation to subsequent collaborative action between clinicians, researchers and stroke survivors to reach consensus on screening and diagnostic measures. The immediate next step is a review of the measures' psychometric properties.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2021. Vol. 31, no 9, p. 1495-1526
Keywords [en]
Spatial neglect, Stroke, Assessment, Rehabilitation, Consensus
National Category
Neurology
Research subject
Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-173915DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1782946ISI: 000550711400001PubMedID: 32691688Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85088368180OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-173915DiVA, id: diva2:1456697
Note
Published online: 21 Jul 2020
2020-08-062020-08-062023-05-03Bibliographically approved