Search

Survivors of neurologic injury (most commonly stroke or traumatic brain injury) frequently experience a disorder in which contralesionally positioned objects or the contralesional features of individual objects are often left unattended or underappreciated. The disorder is known by >200 unique labels in the literature, which potentially causes confusion for patients and their families, complicates literature searches for researchers and clinicians, and promotes a fractionated conceptualization of the disorder. The objective of this Delphi was to determine if consensus (≥75% agreement) could be reached by an international and multidisciplinary panel of researchers and clinicians with expertise on the topic. To accomplish this aim, we used a modified Delphi method in which 66 researchers and/or clinicians with expertise on the topic completed at least 1 of 4 iterative rounds of surveys. Per the Delphi method, panelists were provided with results from each round prior to responding to the survey in the subsequent round with the explicit intention of achieving consensus. The panel ultimately reached consensus that the disorder should be consistently labeled spatial neglect. Based on the consensus reached by our expert panel, we recommend that researchers and clinicians use the label spatial neglect when describing the disorder in general and more specific labels pertaining to subtypes of the disorder when appropriate.

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., Published online: 21 Jul 2020

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., Published online: 21 Jul 2020

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.

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.

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.

Every year, approximately 62 000 people with stroke and transient ischemic attack are treated in Canadian hospitals, and the evidence suggests one-third or more will experience vascular-cognitive impairment, and/or intractable fatigue, either alone or in combination. The 2015 update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Mood, Cognition and Fatigue Module guideline is a comprehensive summary of current evidence-based recommendations for clinicians in a range of settings, who provide care to patients following stroke. The three consequences of stroke that are the focus of the this guideline (poststroke depression, vascular cognitive impairment, and fatigue) have high incidence rates and significant impact on the lives of people who have had a stroke, impede recovery, and result in worse long-term outcomes. Significant practice variations and gaps in the research evidence have been reported for initial screening and in-depth assessment of stroke patients for these conditions. Also of concern, an increased number of family members and informal caregivers may also experience depressive symptoms in the poststroke recovery phase which further impact patient recovery. These factors emphasize the need for a system of care that ensures screening occurs as a standard and consistent component of clinical practice across settings as stroke patients transition from acute care to active rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. Additionally, building system capacity to ensure access to appropriate specialists for treatment and ongoing management of stroke survivors with these conditions is another great challenge.