Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Perceptions of Integrated Medical Service Among Stroke Patients in South Korea: Self-Reported Web-Based Survey Study

 

Without the tyranny of low expectations pushed by medical staff; EVERY SINGLE PERSON WOULD STATE STROKE RECOVERY IS A SHITSHOW OF NOTHINGNESS!

Stroke is a complete shitshow of failure!

This proves the complete failure:
  1. tPA full recovery? Better than 12%?
  2. Rehab full recovery? Better than 10%?

Maybe after you are the 1 in 4 per WHO that has a stroke? Then you just might want 100% recovery. Scream at your doctor for putting any limit on your recovery. 

Perceptions of Integrated Medical Service Among Stroke Patients in South Korea: Self-Reported Web-Based Survey Study

Authors Lee HG , Jung WS , Woo HG , Kwon S , Heo SH 

Received 22 September 2025

Accepted for publication 8 January 2026

Published 29 January 2026 Volume 2026:19 Pages 1—17

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S569481

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr David C. Mohr

 Han-Gyul Lee,1 Woo-Sang Jung,1 Ho Geol Woo,2 Seungwon Kwon,1 Sung Hyuk Heo2

1Department of Cardiology and Neurology, Kyung Hee University College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 2Department of Neurology, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Correspondence: Seungwon Kwon, Email kkokkottung@hanmail.net Sung Hyuk Heo, Email shheo73@hanmail.net

Background: Integrated medical service (IMS) refers to the collaborative treatment of conventional medicine and Korean medicine in Korea. IMS for stroke is recognized for its efficacy, however, there are many barriers to obtaining therapeutic effects in clinical settings. This study was aimed to investigate the current perceptions of IMS among Korean stroke patients to provide a basis for exploring ways to universalize IMS in real-world stroke clinical practice.
Methods: We conducted a self-reported web-based survey in December 2021. We recruited 100 Korean patients who had been diagnosed with stroke. The questionnaire developed by the research team was composed of 5 sections: demographic information, stroke history, perceptions of IMS for acute stroke and stroke sequelae, and other perceptions of IMS for stroke treatment.
Results: For both acute stroke and stroke sequelae, half of the patients agreed (45% and 52%) and about 15% of the patients disagreed to receive IMS (18% and 12%), had positive expectations of IMS effects (49% and 53%), and feel the economic burdensome of IMS (50% and 52%); National Health Insurance (NHI) covered treatments such as acupuncture and electroacupuncture (69.5% and 69.3%) were the most common types of KM treatment desired; private insurance subscribers had higher preference for NHI uncovered treatments such as NHI uncovered herbal medicines; the most common reason for reluctance to receive IMS was economic burden (38.9% and 58.3%) and treatment not being recommended by a conventional medicine doctor in acute stroke (38.9%) even though most patients had positive expectations of IMS effects (49% and 53%).
Conclusion: Stroke patients were favorable to IMS and had high expectations for its effectiveness. Cost and lack of cooperation from conventional medicine doctors were barriers to patients’ access to IMS. Policy reform and active cooperation between conventional and traditional doctors may improve IMS access and satisfaction.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)