Identifying Gaps in Social Support Among Stroke Survivors
Samadhi Thavarajah1
1Medical University of South Carolina
Objective:
The objective of this study was to characterize the prevalence of self-reported social support among stroke survivors and to evaluate differences by race and sex.
Background:
Social support improves functional recovery, psychological outcomes, and quality of life in stroke survivors. Despite these benefits, few studies based in the United States (U.S) have evaluated whether perceived social support differs by race or sex in stroke survivors. Identifying gaps in social support is critical for guiding interventions that promote equitable recovery following a stroke. 
Design/Methods:

Data was collected from the 1999-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Participants were categorized as stroke survivors if they answered “yes” to the question “has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you had a stroke”. NHANES social support questions were selected from the Yale Health and Aging study as well as the Social Network Index. Data analysis was conducted using STATA version 17.0.

Results:

Preliminary data analysis indicates that 22% of African American and 20% of Mexican American participants reported needing more emotional support in the past year compared to 17% of White participants. A higher proportion of females (21%) reported needing additional support compared to males (16%). Overall, 8% of stroke survivors reported not having anyone to provide emotional support, with this being slightly more common among males than females (9% vs 7%).

Conclusions:

Perceived social support varies by race and sex among U.S stroke survivors. Notably, 8% of participants reported having no emotional support, revealing a substantial gap that may hinder recovery and well-being. These findings highlight the need for personalized interventions to strengthen social support networks and promote optimal recovery following hospitalization.

10.1212/WNL.0000000000217139
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.