Does stroke health promotion increase awareness of appropriate behavioural response? Impact of the face, arm, speech and time (FAST) campaign on population knowledge of stroke risk factors, warning signs and emergency response.

Introduction: Inability to identify stroke warning signs accurately is an important cause of delay in seeking medical attention, leading to potential ineligibility for acute intervention. We report on post-campaign findings (wave 2) of national surveys to estimate changes in population knowledge following a media-based Face, Arm, Speech, Time stroke awareness campaign, comparing findings to those of a pre-campaign population survey (wave 1). One thousand and ten randomly selected adults (18+) completed the Stroke Awareness Questionnaire on knowledge of warning signs, risk factors and response to stroke at wave 2 and findings were compared to wave 1 survey results. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between demographic characteristics and self-reported risk factors with knowledge of stroke and emergency response.

Results: No significant differences existed in the ability of respondents to define stroke or to identify two or more stroke risk factors between waves 1 and 2 surveys (71% and 70%, respectively). Respondents to the wave 2 survey were five times more likely (odds ratio 4.9,  < .001) than those responding at wave 1 to know at least two warning signs of stroke (67% vs. 31%, respectively), specifically those targeted by the Face, Arm, Speech, Time campaign. While significant improvement in intention to call an ambulance was noted (odds ratio 1.5,  < .001, 57% at wave 2 compared to 47% at wave 1), for almost half of respondents (43%) this would not have been their first response to stroke. Less than 5% of respondents to both surveys identified thrombolysis as an emergency treatment for stroke (3.9% at wave 2 compared to 1.8% at wave 1).

Discussion: Although significant improvements were made in several areas of stroke knowledge and intended response, awareness of acute stroke interventions was poor and intended behavioural response was suboptimal.

Conclusion: Findings from this study indicate need for targeted campaigns to improve population understanding of the reasons underlying the importance of rapid emergency response to stroke.