Share this Article
Yang SY, Kong KH
Correspondence: Dr Keng He Kong,keng_he_kong@ttsh.com.sg
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION The level of participation is an important factor influencing rehabilitation outcome. However, few studies have evaluated rehabilitation participation and its clinical predictors in patients with stroke. This study aimed to establish the level of participation in patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation, and define the clinical predictors for participation.
METHODS This was a prospective observational study of first-time patients with stroke admitted to a rehabilitation centre over a 12-month period. The primary outcome measure was the level of rehabilitation participation as measured on the Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale (PRPS). PRPS measurements were made one week after admission and one week before planned discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Other outcome measures evaluated were the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Elderly Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire (ECAQ), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Lubben Social Network Scale-Revised, and Multidimensional Health Questionnaire.
RESULTS A total of 122 patients with stroke were studied. The mean PRPS score on admission was relatively high at 4.30 ± 0.90, and this improved to 4.65 ± 0.79 before planned discharge (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the mean PRPS score on admission was predicted by FIM, EACQ and FSS scores on admission, but not by variables such as age, gender, depression, social support, or health attitudes and beliefs.
CONCLUSION Patients with lower levels of participation were more likely to be functionally dependent, cognitively impaired and have more fatigue. We suggest that in addition to cognition, fatigue should be routinely screened in patients with stroke undergoing rehabilitation.
Keywords: patient participation, rehabilitation, stroke
Singapore Med J 2013; 54(10): 564-568; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013201
REFERENCES
| 1. Lenze EJ, Munin MC, Quear T, et al. The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale: reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85:380-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.001 |
||||
| 2. Paolucci S, Di Vita A, Massicci R, et al. Impact of participation on rehabilitation results: a multivariate study. Eur J Phys Rehabil 2012; 48:455-66. | ||||
| 3. Holmqvist LW, von Koch L. Environmental factors in stroke rehabilitation. BMJ 2001; 322:1501-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1501 |
||||
| 4. Maclean N, Pound P, Wolfe C, Rudd A. Qualitative analysis of stroke patients' motivation for rehabilitation. BMJ 2000; 321:1051-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1051 |
||||
| 5. Teasell RW, Kalra L. What's new in stroke rehabilitation: back to basics. Stroke 2005; 36:215-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000153061.02375.04 |
||||
| 6. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, et al. Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328:1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1099 |
||||
| 7. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice. 8. Essential documents for the conduct of a clinical trial. J Postgrad Med 2001; 47:264. | ||||
| 8. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989; 20:864-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864 |
||||
| 9. Kua, EH, Ko SM. A questionnaire to screen for cognitive impairment among elderly people in developing countries. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1992; 85:119-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1992.tb01454.x |
||||
| 10. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. In: Eisenberg MG, Grzesiak RC, eds. Advance in Clinical Rehabilitation volume 1. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 6-18. | ||||
| 11. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measures 1977; 1:385-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 |
||||
| 12. Shinar D, Gross CR, Price TR, et al. Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. Stroke 1986; 17:241-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.17.2.241 |
||||
| 13. Krupp LB, LaRocca G, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol 1989; 46:1121–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022 |
||||
| 14. Lubben J, Gironda M, Lee A. Refinements to the Lubben Social Network Scale: The LSNS-R. The Behavioural Measurements Letter 2001; 7:2-11. | ||||
| 15. Snell WE Jr, Johnson G. The Multidimensional Health Questionnaire. Am J Health Behav 1997; 21:33-42. | ||||
| 16. Heruti RJ, Lusky A, Danker R, et al. Rehabilitation outcome of elderly patients after a first stroke: effect of cognitive status at admission on the functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83:742-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.32739 |
||||
| 17. Hakkennes SJ, Brock K, Hill KD. Selection for inpatient rehabilitation after acute stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92:2057-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07.189 |
||||
| 18. Skidmore ER, Whyte EM, Holm MB, et al. Cognitive and affective predictors of rehabilitation participation after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91:203-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.026 |
||||
| 19. Lerdal A, Bakken LN, Kouwenhoven SE, et al. Poststroke fatigue-a review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009; 38:928-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.04.028 |
||||
| 20. Ingles JL, Eskes GA, Phillips SJ. Fatigue after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80:173-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90116-8 |
||||
| 21. Snaphaan L, van der Werf S, de Leeuw FE. Time course and risk factors of post-stroke fatigue: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Neurol 2011; 18:611-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03217.x |
||||
| 22. Glader EL, Stegmayr B, Asplund K. Poststroke fatigue: a 2-year follow-up study of stroke patients in Sweden. Stroke 2002; 33:1327-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000014248.28711.D6 |
||||
| 23. Tseng BY, Billinger SA, Gajewski BJ, Kluding PM. Exertion fatigue and chronic fatigue are two distinct constructs in people post-stroke. Stroke 2010; 41:2908-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.596064 |
||||
| 24. Naess H, Nyland HI, Thomassen L, Aarseth J, Myhr KM. Fatigue at long-term follow-up in young adults with cerebral infarction. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005; 20:245-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000087706 |
||||
| 25. Mold F, McKevitt C, Wolfe C. A review and commentary of the social factors which influence stroke care: issues of inequality in qualitative literature. Health Soc Care Community 2003; 11:405-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00443.x |
||||