Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to review the limited, but growing, literature on prospective memory (PM) following stroke using a scoping study methodology. Multiple databases were systematically searched and yielded 11 studies that were classified as observational (n = 7) or intervention studies (n = 4) and reviewed for quality. PM impairment after stroke was more commonly identified using behavioural measures compared to self-report measures. There were mixed findings regarding the extent and nature of PM impairment poststroke; however, more studies reported impairment for time-based PM, compared to both event- and activity-based PM. Studies examining rehabilitative techniques for PM resulted in mixed findings and were limited as most were case studies of poor methodological quality. Overall previous research in this area was limited as most studies were often underpowered due to small sample sizes, or used single-item measures which may not be robust enough to reliably measure PM impairment. Additionally, the methods used to measure PM were varied and many studies did not control for retrospective memory impairment, which could impact the results, as PM has both a retrospective (remembering both the action and when it needs to be completed) and prospective component (remembering to perform the action when appropriate). In conclusion, PM impairment is apparent poststroke, specifically for time-based PM. However, more research is needed to determine why PM impairment occurs, and how it can be improved.

The Assessment and Prediction of Prospective Memory after Stroke

“…Previous research investigating the impact of stroke on PM performance shows varied results depending on the type of measure used. Studies utilising behavioural measures have generally found that PM impairment occurs after stroke, especially for time-based PM (Hogan, Fleming, Cornwell, & Shum, 2016). One study (Kim, Craik, Luo, & Ween, 2009) found no difference in event-based PM performance but significantly poorer time-based PM for individuals with stroke (n = 12) when compared to controls (n = 12).…”

Self-reported prospective memory after stroke

“…Using a standardised and psychometrically valid and reliable measure of self-awareness (i.e., Awareness Questionnaire; Sherer, Bergloff, Boake, High Jr, & Levin, 1998) would allow us to draw stronger conclusions on an individual's ability to report their own PM. Especially since self-report methods can be subject to rater bias, wherein the individual reports higher or lower levels of ability in order to make themselves appear in a negative or positive way (Hogan et al, 2016;Kliegel & Jager, 2006;Meeks, Hicks, & Marsh, 2007).…”

“…There is a paucity of research on PM after stroke and mixed findings have been indicated when examining PM using self-report methods. A recent scoping review (Hogan, Fleming, Cornwell, & Shum, 2016) reported that the majority of the self-report literature (three studies out of five) found that individuals with stroke did not report any more or less PM problems than healthy controls. For example, Brooks, Rose, Potter, Jayawardena, and Morling (2004) used a 10item questionnaire about real-life PM and reported no differences in self-reported PM between individuals with stroke (n = 25) and controls (n = 25).…”

Validation of the Prospective Memory Concerns Questionnaire (PMCQ)

“…Moreover, PM failures have been linked to poor outcomes in relation to medication adherence (Zogg et al, 2012) and independent functioning (Hering et al, 2018). This has particularly been so for those with cognitive impairments resulting from acquired brain injury (Hogan et al, 2016), traumatic brain injury (Shum et al, 2002(Shum et al, , 2011, or neurodegenerative conditions such as dementia (Van Den Berg et al, 2012).…”