Oral Presentation Smart Strokes Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

Engagement in group-based community-based programs after stroke: example from the Support After Stroke with group-based classeS (SASS) trial (106887)

Tara Purvis 1 , Tash Thayabaranathan 1 , Maarten A Immink 2 , Susan Hillier 3 , Shaun Hancock 1 , Olivia Brancatisano 1 , Dominique A Cadilhac 1 4
  1. Stroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  2. Caring Futures Institute and College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  3. IIMPACT, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  4. Stroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia

Introduction: Post-stroke survivor and support person engagement in community-based recovery interventions varies despite the importance of these interventions. We aimed to explore engagement in two face-to-face group-based programs delivered in the Support After Stroke with group-based classeS (SASS) trial.

Methods: Participants (~12-18mths post-stroke) were randomised to a movement-based mindfulness intervention (MBI) or attention control (lifestyle education with socialisation) program for 12-weekly classes. This evaluation included participant satisfaction surveys and focus groups/interviews with purposively selected participants (n=5 MBI, n=5 control), and support person surveys. Quantitative data was analysed descriptively, inductive thematic analysis for qualitative data.

Results: Surveys were completed by 16/17 MBI and 15/18 control participants, with 17/23 from support persons (n=9 MBI, n=8 control), the majority a spouse/partner (82%). Group sizes ranged from 2-5 participants. Participation was high: MBI- median 10 classes (Q1:9,Q3:12), attention control- median 11 classes (Q1:9,Q3:11), with two dropouts (MBI). Participants (survivors) from both groups highlighted the benefit of having a shared experience of stroke, with the realisation they were ‘not alone’. This permitted open and unguarded conversations and sharing of stories and experiences, which participants from both groups felt could be enhanced by larger group sizes. The face-to-face nature of the programs was beneficial, potentially impacting on the positive social interactions reported by both groups. Only, one support person participated in the MBI program, while others (n=4) were reportedly only involved in driving participants to classes. Overall, about 60% expressed interest in attending future classes.

Conclusion: High engagement was seen by participants in both groups, with particular benefits related to shared experiences and social interactions. Support persons had minimal involvement, however, this could be a consideration in future interventions.  

Relevance to clinical practice/patient experience: These insights highlight the importance of providing opportunities for social interactions in group-based stroke programs to support community reintegration.