Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-5 | Page 39

Sexuality after stroke 355 Table I. Participants’ characteristics Characteristic Age, years, mean (SD) Years since first stroke/partner’s first stroke, mean (SD) Received advice about sexuality during stroke rehabilitation, n (%) Yes No Don’t recall Disciplinary background, n (%) Rehabilitation medicine Nursing Occupational therapy Physiotherapy Psychology Speech pathology Social work Sexology Sexual counselling Other Gender, n (%) Male Female Sexual orientation, n (%) Heterosexual Gay Lesbian Bisexual Prefer not to say Religious preference, n (%) Christian Judaism Buddhism Hinduism Atheism Missing Stroke survivors (R1) n  = 30 Stroke survivors Partners Partners (R2) n  = 19 (R1) n  = 18 (R2) n  = 8 Clinicians (R1) n  = 35 Clinicians Researchers (R2) n  = 17 (R1) n  = 19 Researchers (R2) n  = 6 53.4 (15.4) 55.7 (17.6) 52.5 (15.6) 51.9 (14.6) 47.7 (12.3) 43.6 (11.3) 48 (10.3) 46.3 (12.5) 6.1 (4.2) 5.6 (3.3) 6.2 (3.2) 5.4 (3.3) 4 (13.3) 24 (80.0) 2 (6.6) 3 (15.7) 16 (84.2) 1 (5.5) 16 (88.8) 1 (4.5)   7 (87.5) 1 (12.5) 5 (14.2) 4 (11.4) 12 (34.2) 1 (2.8) 3 (8.5) 2 (5.7) 2 (5.7) 4 (11.4) 1 (2.8) 1 (2.8) 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1     1 (16.6) 1 (16.6) 2 (33.3) (17.6) (17.6) (35.3) (5.8) (5.8) (5.8) (5.8) (5.8) 2 4 3 2 3 1 2 1 (10.5) (21) (15.7) (10.5) (15.7) (5.2) (10.5) (5.2) 1 (16.6) 1 (16.6) 1 (5.2) 16 (53.3) 14 (46.6) 9 (47.4) 10 (52.6) 13 (72.2) 6 (33.3) 5 (62.5) 3 (37.5) 3 (8.5) 32 (91.4) 1 (5.8) 16 (94.1) 12 (63.1) 7 (36.8) 4 (66.6) 2 (33.3) 27 (90.0)   3 (10.0)   17 (89.5)   2 (10.5)   18 (100.0) 8 (100.0) 32 (92.0)     1 (2.8) 1 (2.8) 15 (88.2)     1 (5.9) 1 (5.9) 16 (84.2) 5 (83.3) 2 (10.6) 1 (16.6) 15 (43) 3 (8.6) 2 (11.8) 1 (5.9) 7 (36.8) 6 (100.0) 13 (37.1) 4 (11.4) 12 (70.5) 2 (11.8) 8 (42.1) 4 (21) 10 (33.3) 1 (3.3) 2 (6.7) 9 (47.4) 1 (5.3) 1 (5.3) 13 (43.3) 4 (13.3) 8 (42) 13 (59) 3 (37.5) 1 (4.5) 1 (4.5) 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 3 (13.7) 3 (37.5) tion following stroke. No further content was identified through open-ended questions in rounds 1 or 2. Table SI 1 shows the final 47 content areas, with consensus sco- res and both priority scores. Table II presents the final 47 questions in a matrix categorized by consensus and priority tier. None of the original 47 content areas were excluded by participants. Eighteen content areas were identified as being of high priority with a high level of consensus. A further 27 content areas were identified as having intermediate priority, again with a high level of consensus. One content area “What is sexuality?” was given a low priority with moderate level of consensus, while the content area “Why is it important to talk about sexuality?” was given an intermediate priority with high consensus. Analysis of responses between rounds 1 and 2 indicated no changes in priority or consensus relating to content areas. Analysis of responses to open-ended questions indi- cated that stroke survivors and partners were conscious of the individual nature of sexuality and the stroke re- covery experience, and thus, were reluctant to exclude content areas based on their own personal experience: ‘I feel these would be relevant to all stroke survivors and the partners. Additional information should be chosen on an individual basis depending on the personal situation’ and 1 (5.3) ‘I have no physical problems and my partner’s very sup- portive therefore I have many neutral answers. I could expect that there are many others have real problems.’ Clinicians and researchers had similar concerns, noting that discriminating between content areas was often difficult, with practice typically led by the needs of individual stroke survivors and their partner. ‘All are extremely relevant, and each has a specific function regarding one’s sexuality and disability and their approach with this as an individual and as a couple.’ Clinicians and researchers tended to rank content related to psychological, cognitive and behavioural changes after stroke higher because in their experience, professionals were more able to respond to sexual pro- blems caused by stroke-related physical impairments: ‘I have focused more on the social and psychological aspects for suggested topics as, in my experience, doctors and allied health are already reasonably comfortable in dis- cussing changes to physical functioning related to sexuality following stroke.’ Similarly, some respondents suggested that focusing on communication about sexuality following stroke could be a useful starting point as this would support stroke survivors and their partners to identify other areas of concern: J Rehabil Med 51, 2019