Qualitative study explores healthcare providers' experiences with self-management support for discharged stroke patients, highlighting barriers and impacts.
Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, with substantial physical, psychological, and economic impacts. Self-management support (SMS), a core component of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), can help patients manage chronic conditions and improve quality of life. In Ghana, culturally tailored post-discharge SMS guidelines for stroke survivors are lacking, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent care. This study explored healthcare providers’ experiences with post-discharge SMS, including barriers, perceived impacts on patient outcomes, and satisfaction with current practices. Using Thorne’s interpretive description approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 healthcare providers and 3 administrators. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Thorne’s three-phase thematic framework, guided by the CCM and evidence-based SMS attributes. Three themes emerged: (1) current healthcare practices to assist home-based stroke self-management, (2) barriers to providing SMS, and (3) impact of current SMS and providers' satisfaction. Pre-discharge support included education on medications, lifestyle changes, and caregiver training. Post-discharge support was limited, with minimal follow-up, home visits, or ongoing guidance. Essential SMS elements such as collaborative goal setting, comprehensive education, emotional support, and sexual health guidance were largely absent. Barriers included a lack of formal guidelines, staff shortages, heavy workloads, low literacy, cultural and religious beliefs, limited family involvement, and communication challenges. Providers expressed mixed satisfaction with pre-discharge care but widespread dissatisfaction with post-discharge support. Providers face significant challenges delivering effective SMS, limiting stroke survivors’ home-based disease management. Current practices focus on information delivery rather than proactive, culturally sensitive, and collaborative support, undermining patients’ confidence and ability to manage their conditions independently.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ansong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: