Social Factors special mentioned by the respondents concerning their interaction “A with others was that their symptoms were in part hidden or difficult for Sense of Belonging others to see and understand”(Carlsson et al.);“resistant because bus versus Perceived drivers and other passengers did not understand their disabilities”(Barnsley Stigmatisation et al.); also expressed feelings of social stigma”(Rittman et al.). “Participants participants felt they were now treated differently and experienced “Some discomfort at being accorded sympathy”(Dickson et al.); with “Interactions strangers evoked a particularly strong emotional reaction”(Dickson et al.); who appeared to have recovered but had on-going limitations “participants due to fatigue and experienced stigmatization from the broader community”(White et al. a); something with someone that matters “doing supported the participants’ sense of belonging and, thus, integration into social worlds”(Erikson et al. a);“Belonging was characterized as feeling part of a group and valuing engagement in its activities. The result was motivation to continue to take part in the group’s activities”(Kubina et al.); accounts also highlight the importance of flexibility on the “participants’ part of significant others in the social context of the activity”(Robison et al.); was identified as a major source of social “church interactions”(Rittman et al.); participants who felt that work “Those colleagues or managers were not supportive and did not recognize and support them, found return to work difficult” (Alaszewski et al.); the “Over year of rehabilitation, the participants felt an easing into belonging that was supported by others both at home and at the workplace”(Erikson et al. a);“the importance of flexibility in relation to working hours and workload and the merits of being able to arrange a phased return, factors, which typically rely on the willingness and cooperation of others”(Robison et al.).
Social Factors Sense of Belonging versus Perceived Stigmatisation “A special mentioned by the respondents concerning their interaction with others was that their symptoms were in part hidden or difficult for others to see and understand”(Carlsson et al.);“resistant because bus drivers and other passengers did not understand their disabilities”(Barnsley et al.); “Participants also expressed feelings of social stigma”(Rittman et al.). “Some participants felt they were now treated differently and experienced discomfort at being accorded sympathy”(Dickson et al.); “Interactions with strangers evoked a particularly strong emotional reaction”(Dickson et al.); “participants who appeared to have recovered but had on-going limitations due to fatigue and experienced stigmatization from the broader community”(White et al. a); “doing something with someone that matters supported the participants’ sense of belonging and, thus, integration into social worlds”(Erikson et al. a);“Belonging was characterized as feeling part of a group and valuing engagement in its activities. The result was motivation to continue to take part in the group’s activities”(Kubina et al.); “participants’ accounts also highlight the importance of flexibility on the part of significant others in the social context of the activity”(Robison et al.); “church was identified as a major source of social interactions”(Rittman et al.); “Those participants who felt that work colleagues or managers were not supportive and did not recognize and support them, found return to work difficult” (Alaszewski et al.); “Over the year of rehabilitation, the participants felt an easing into belonging that was supported by others both at home and at the workplace”(Erikson et al. a);“the importance of flexibility in relation to working hours and workload and the merits of being able to arrange a phased return, factors, which typically rely on the willingness and cooperation of others”(Robison et al.).
National-Survey-of-Stroke-Survivors.docx