Self-management: a systematic review of outcome measures adopted in self-management interventions for stroke

Emma J Boger, Sara Demain, Sue Latter, Emma J Boger, Sara Demain, Sue Latter

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the psychometric properties of outcome measures used in stroke self-management interventions (SMIs) to (1) inform researchers, clinicians and commissioners about the properties of the measures in use and (2) make recommendations for the future development of self-management measurement in stroke.

Methods: Electronic databases, government websites, generic internet search engines and hand searches of reference lists. Abstracts were selected against inclusion criteria and retrieved for appraisal and systematically scored, using the COSMIN checklist.

Results: Thirteen studies of stroke self-management originating from six countries were identified. Forty-three different measures (mean 5.08/study, SD 2.19) were adopted to evaluate self-SMIs. No studies measured self-management as a discreet concept. Six (46%) studies included untested measures. Eleven (85%) studies included at least one measure without reported reliability and validity in stroke populations.

Conclusions: The use of outcome measures which are related, indirect or proxy indicators of self-management and that have questionable reliability and validity, contributes to an inability to sensitively evaluate the effectiveness of stroke self-SMIs. Further enquiry into how the concept of self-management in stroke operates, would help to clarify the nature and range of specific self-management activities to be targeted and aid the selection of existing appropriate measures or the development of new measures.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of concepts used by studies (n = 13).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Percentage of studies with COSMIN quality rating (n = 21).

References

    1. Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, Barker-Collo SL, Parag V. Worldwide stroke incidence and early case fatality reported in 56 population-based studies: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:355–369.
    1. NAO, National Audit Office. Reducing brain damage: faster access to better stroke care. London: Stationary Office; 2005.
    1. Ellis-Hill C, Payne S, Ward C. Using stroke to explore the life thread model: an alternative approach to understanding rehabilitation following an acquired disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:150–159.
    1. Horgan NF, O’Regan M, Cunningham CJ, Finn AM. Recovery after stroke: a 1-year profile. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:831–839.
    1. McKevitt C, Redfern J, Mold F, Wolfe C. Qualitative studies of stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2004;35:1499–1505.
    1. Young J, Murray J, Forster A. Review of longer-term problems after disabling stroke. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2003;13:55–65.
    1. Ch’ng A, French D, McLean N. Coping with the challenges of recovery from stroke: long term perspectives of stroke support group members. J Health Psychol. 2008;13:1136–1146.
    1. Mukherjee D, Levin RL, Heller W. The cognitive, emotional, and social sequelae of stroke: psychological and ethical concerns in post-stroke adaptation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006;13:26–35.
    1. Dowswell G, Lawler J, Dowswell T, Young J, Forster A, Hearn J. Investigating recovery from stroke: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2000;9:507–515.
    1. Ellis-Hill CS, Payne S, Ward C. Self-body split: issues of identity in physical recovery following a stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:725–733.
    1. Vanhook P. The domains of stroke recovery: a synopsis of the literature. J Neurosci Nurs. 2009;41:6–17.
    1. de Ridder D, Geenen R, Kuijer R, van Middendorp H. Psychological adjustment to chronic disease. Lancet. 2008;372:246–255.
    1. Battersby M, Lawn S, Pols R. Conceptualisation of self-management. In: Kralik D, Paterson B, Coates V, editors. Translating chronic illness research into practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 2010. (eds)
    1. Kralik D, Koch T, Price K, Howard N. Chronic illness self-management: taking action to create order. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:259–267.
    1. Health Do., editor. DoH. White paper ‘Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS’. London: Department of Health; 2010. (ed)
    1. DoH. White paper. healthy lives, healthy people: our strategy for public health in England. London: The Stationary Office; 2010.
    1. Health Do., editor. DoH. The health and social care bill. London: Department of Health; 2011. (ed)
    1. Imison C, et al. Transforming our health care system: Top ten priorities for commissioners. London: The King’s Fund; 2011.
    1. Foundation H. Evidence: helping people help themselves. A review of the evidence considering whether it is worthwhile to support self-management. London: The Health Foundation; 2011.
    1. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:1–7.
    1. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA. 2002;288:2469–2475.
    1. Glasgow RE, Funnell MM, Bonomi AE, Davis C, Beckham V, Wagner EH. Self-management aspects of the improving chronic illness care breakthrough series: implementation with diabetes and heart failure teams. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:80–87.
    1. Rogers A, Bury M, Kennedy A. Rationality, rhetoric, and religiosity in health care: the case of England’s Expert Patients Programme. Int J Health Serv. 2009;39:725–747.
    1. Robinson-Smith G. Self-efficacy and quality of life after stroke. J Neuroscience Nursing. 2002;34:91–98.
    1. Western H. Altered living: coping, hope and quality of life after stroke. Br J Nurs. 2007;16:1266–1270.
    1. Du S, Yuan C. Evaluation of patient self-management outcomes in health care: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57:159–167.
    1. MRC. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council; 2000.
    1. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, Brown BW, Jr, Bandura A, Ritter P, Gonzalez VM, et al. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial. Med Care. 1999;37:5–14.
    1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. The influence of attitude on behaviour. In: Albarracín D, Johnson B, Zanna M, editors. The Handbook of Attidues. New Jersey:: Lawrence Erlbaum Ltd; 2005. pp. 173–221. (eds.)
    1. Hardeman W, et al. Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions: a systematic review. Psychology & Health. 2002;17:123–158.
    1. Hirsche RC, Williams B, Jones A, Manns P. Chronic disease self-management for individuals with stroke, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1136–1146.
    1. Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:297–327.
    1. Oppenheim A. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. 2nd edn. London: Pinter; 2000.
    1. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18:979–992.
    1. Valderas JM, Ferrer M, Mendívil J, Garin O, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Alonso J Scientific Committee on “Patient-Reported Outcomes” of the IRYSS Network. Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health. 2008;11:700–708.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Riphagen I, Knol DL, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:313–333.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–549.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Knol DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:82.
    1. Elbers RG, Rietberg MB, van Wegen EE, Verhoef J, Kramer SF, Terwee CB, Kwakkel G. Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: a systematic review of measurement properties. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:925–944.
    1. Schellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Terwee CB. Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:87.
    1. Smit S, Lamping D, Maclaine G. Measuring health-related quality of life in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Practice. 2012;96:261–270.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–657.
    1. DeVellis R. Scale development. Theory and applications. In: Bickman L, Rog D, editors. Applied social research methods series. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks; 2003. (eds.) Vol. 26. 2nd edn.
    1. Marsden D, Quinn R, Pond N, Golledge R, Neilson C, White J, McElduff P, Pollack M. A multidisciplinary group programme in rural settings for community-dwelling chronic stroke survivors and their carers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:328–341.
    1. Jones F, Mandy A, Partridge C. Changing self-efficacy in individuals following a first time stroke: preliminary study of a novel self-management intervention. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:522–533.
    1. Sackley C, Wade DT, Mant D, Atkinson JC, Yudkin P, Cardoso K, Levin S, et al. Cluster randomized pilot controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke in UK care homes. Stroke. 2006;37:2336–2341.
    1. Cadilhac DA, Hoffmann S, Kilkenny M, Lindley R, Lalor E, Osborne RH, Batterbsy M. A phase II multicentered, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of the stroke self-management program. Stroke. 2011;42:1673–1679.
    1. Allen K, et al. Improving stroke outcomes: implementation of a postdischarge care management model. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2004;11:707–714.
    1. Frank G, et al. Perceived control and recovery from functional limitations: Preliminary evaluation of a workbook-based intervention for discharged stroke patients. British J Health Psychol. 2000;5:413–420.
    1. Johnston M, Bonetti D, Joice S, Pollard B, Morrison V, Francis JJ, Macwalter R. Recovery from disability after stroke as a target for a behavioural intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1117–1127.
    1. Ljungberg C, Hanson E, Lovgren M. A home rehabilitation program for stroke patients: a pilot study. Scandinavian J Caring Sciences. 2001;15:44–53.
    1. Sit JW, Yip VY, Ko SK, Gun AP, Lee JS. A quasi-experimental study on a community-based stroke prevention programme for clients with minor stroke. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16:272–281.
    1. Chau JP, Thompson DR, Twinn S, Chang AM, Woo J. Determinants of participation restriction among community dwelling stroke survivors: a path analysis. BMC Neurol. 2009;9:49.
    1. Saxena SK, Ng TP, Koh G, Yong D, Fong NP. Is improvement in impaired cognition and depressive symptoms in post-stroke patients associated with recovery in activities of daily living? Acta Neurol Scand. 2007;115:339–346.
    1. Whyte EM, Mulsant BH, Vanderbilt J, Dodge HH, Ganguli M. Depression after stroke: a prospective epidemiological study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:774–778.
    1. Quinn T, Langhorne P, Stott D. Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42:1146–1151.
    1. Cott C, Wiles R, Devitt R. Continuity, transition and participation: preparing clients for life in the community post-stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1566–1574.
    1. Jerant A, von Friederichs-Fitzwater M, Moore M. Patients’ percieved barriers to active self-management of chronic conditions. Patient Education and Counseling. 2005;57:300–307.
    1. Bandura A. The nature and structure of self-efficacy. In: Bandura A, editor. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman and Company; 1997. pp. 3–5. (ed)
    1. Kennedy A, Reeves D, Bower P, Lee V, Middleton E, Richardson G, Gardner C, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with long-term conditions: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61:254–261.
    1. Bowling A. What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1447–1462.
    1. Bury M, Newbould J, Taylor D. A rapid review of the current state of knowledge regarding lay-led self-management of chronic illness. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2005.
    1. Vogt D, King D, King L. Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assess. 2004;16:231–243.
    1. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. 2nd edn.
    1. Switzer GE, Wisniewski SR, Belle SH, Dew MA, Schultz R. Selecting, developing, and evaluating research instruments. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1999;34:399–409.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
    1. Willis GL, Moore C, Armstrong SM. Breaking away from dopamine deficiency: an essential new direction for Parkinson’s disease. Rev Neurosci. 2012;23:403–428.
    1. Beck SL, Towsley GL, Berry PH, Brant JM, Smith EM. Measuring the quality of care related to pain management: a multiple-method approach to instrument development. Nurs Res. 2010;59:85–92.
    1. Rosal M, Carbone E, Goins K. Use of cognitive interviewing to adapt measurement instruments for low-literate Hispanics. Diabetes Educ. 2003;29:1006–1017.
    1. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M. Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:249–252.
    1. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA. Introduction to psychometric theory. Taylor & Francis, New York, USA; 2010.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–74.
    1. O’Donnell AB, Lutfey KE, Marceau LD, McKinlay JB. Using focus groups to improve the validity of cross-national survey research: a study of physician decision making. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:971–981.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–1217.
    1. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. 2002;40:II45–II51.
    1. Kendall E, Catalano T, Kuipers P, Posner N, Buys N, Charker J. Recovery following stroke: the role of self-management education. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:735–746.
    1. Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:833–843.
    1. Darzi A. Our NHS our future: High quality care for all in NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008.
    1. Jenkinson C, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. P.-r.O.M. Group. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures in relation to stroke. Oxford: Department of Public Health University of Oxford; 2009.
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–696.
    1. Redfern J, McKevitt C, Wolfe CD. Development of complex interventions in stroke care: a systematic review. Stroke. 2006;37:2410–2419.
    1. Warsi A, Wang PS, LaValley MP, Avorn J, Solomon DH. Self-management education programs in chronic disease: a systematic review and methodological critique of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1641–1649.
    1. Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, Crawford B, Rosa K. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1087–1096.
    1. Blakeman T, Bower P, Reeves D, Chew-Graham C. Bringing self-management into clinical view: a qualitative study of long-term condition management in primary care consultations. Chronic Illn. 2010;6:136–150.
    1. Bury M, Pink D. The HSJ debate. Self-management of chronic disease doesn’t work. Health Serv J. 2005;115:18–9, 1.
    1. Jones F, Riazi A. Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:797–810.
    1. Cano SJ, Hobart JC. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:279–290.
    1. Wagner E. Care of older people with chronic illness. In: Calkins E, editor. New ways to care for older people: building systems based on evidence. Springer; New York: 1999. (eds)
    1. Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr. 1966;80:1–28.
    1. Schwarzer R. Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviours: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In: Schwarzer R, editor. Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Hemisphere; London: 1992. pp. 217–243. (ed)
    1. Guidetti S, Ytterberg C. A randomised controlled trial of a client-centred self-care intervention after stroke: a longitudinal pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:494–503.
    1. Huijbregts MP, Myers AM, Streiner D, Teasell R. Implementation, process, and preliminary outcome evaluation of two community programs for persons with stroke and their care partners. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15:503–520.
    1. Huijbregts M, McEwen S, Taylor D. Exploring the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Telehealth Stroke Self-Management Programme: A Pilot Study. Physiotherapy Canada. 2009;61:210–220.
    1. Orem D. Nursing: concepts of practice. St Louis, USA: Mosby; 1995.
    1. Carr J, Sheppard R. A motor relearning programme for stroke. London: Heinemann; 1987. 2nd edn.
    1. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995;50A:M28–M34.
    1. Botner E, Miller W, Eng J. Measurement properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale among individuals with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:156–163.
    1. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:209–224.
    1. Sturm JW, Osborne RH, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Macdonell RA, Thrift AG. Brief comprehensive quality of life assessment after stroke: the assessment of quality of life instrument in the north East melbourne stroke incidence study (NEMESIS). Stroke. 2002;33:2888–2894.
    1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.
    1. Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:670–676.
    1. Jacob-Lloyd H, et al. Effective measurement of the functional progress of stroke clients. British J Occupat Ther. 2005;68:253–259.
    1. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:1741–1745.
    1. Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito A, Witter DM, Enarson C, Matchar D. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:740–745.
    1. van Hartingsveld F, Lucas C, Kwakkel G, Lindeboom R. Improved interpretation of stroke trial results using empirical Barthel item weights. Stroke. 2006;37:162–166.
    1. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:61–63.
    1. Hsueh I, Lee M, Hsieh C. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001;100:526–532.
    1. Berg K. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada. 1989;41:304–311.
    1. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health. 1992;83 Suppl 2:S7–11.
    1. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995;27:27–36.
    1. English CK, Hillier SL, Stiller K, Warden-Flood A. The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change amongst patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:52–55.
    1. Stevenson TJ. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47:29–38.
    1. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Hanley JA, Richards CL, Wood-Dauphinee S. Psychometric evaluation of the original and Canadian French version of the activities-specific balance confidence scale among people with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1597–1604.
    1. Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401.
    1. Agrell B, Dehlin O. Comparison of six depression rating scales in geriatric stroke patients. Stroke. 1989;20:1190–1194.
    1. Shinar D, Gross CR, Price TR, Banko M, Bolduc PL, Robinson RG. Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Stroke. 1986;17:241–245.
    1. Kim JH, Park EY. Rasch analysis of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale used for the assessment of community-residing patients with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:2075–2083.
    1. Wilde B. Department of Geriatric Medicine. University of Gothernburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 1994. Quality of care: models, instruments and empirical results among elderly.
    1. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, Sanford J, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58–63.
    1. Huijbregts M, Gowland C, Gruber R. Measuring clinically important change with the Activity Inventory of the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Physiotherapy Canada. 2000;52:295–304.
    1. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12:166–170.
    1. Wade D, Legh-Smith J, Langton Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med. 1985;7:176–181.
    1. Piercy M, Carter J, Mant J, Wade DT. Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay activities index in patients with stroke and their careers. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:433–440.
    1. Schepers VP, Ketelaar M, Visser-Meily JM, Dekker J, Lindeman E. Responsiveness of functional health status measures frequently used in stroke research. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:1035–1040.
    1. Pedersen PM, Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Comprehensive assessment of activities of daily living in stroke. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:161–165.
    1. Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke. 1993;24:1173–1177.
    1. Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2002;73:188–190.
    1. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:531–536.
    1. Cavanagh SJ, Hogan K, Gordon V, Fairfax J. Stroke-specific FIM models in an urban population. J Neurosci Nurs. 2000;32:17–21.
    1. Daving Y, Andrén E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:301–310.
    1. Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke. 1994;25:2391–2397.
    1. Brock K, Goldie P, Greenwood K. Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: choosing a discriminative measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:92–99.
    1. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1226–1232.
    1. Sheikh J, Yesavage J. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontologist. 1986;5:165–172.
    1. Wancata J, Alexandrowicz R, Marquart B, Weiss M, Friedrich F. The criterion validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;114:398–410.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–370.
    1. Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, Lodder J, Honig A. Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics. 2002;43:386–393.
    1. Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P. Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res. 2000;48:579–584.
    1. Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified rivermead mobility index: validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:833–839.
    1. Johnson L, Selfe J. Measurement of mobility following stroke: a comparison of the Modified Rivermead Mobility Index and the Motor Assessment Scale. Physiotherapy. 2004;90:132–138.
    1. Hsieh C, Hsueh I, Mao M. Validity and responsiveness of the Rivermead Mobility Index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehab Med. 2000;32:140–142.
    1. Partridge C, Johnston M. Perceived control of recovery from physical disability: measurement and prediction. Br J Clin Psychol. 1989;28 (Pt 1):53–59.
    1. Johnston M, et al. Perceived control, coping and recovery from disability following stroke. Psychology & Health. 1999;14:181–192.
    1. Wood-Dauphinee SL, Opzoomer MA, Williams JI, Marchand B, Spitzer WO. Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:583–590.
    1. Daneski K, Coshall C, Tilling K, Wolfe CD. Reliability and validity of a postal version of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, modified for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:835–839.
    1. Stark SL, Edwards DF, Hollingsworth H, Gray DB. Validation of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index in a population of community-dwelling people with mobility limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:344–345.
    1. Whiting S, Lincoln N. An ADL assessment for stroke patients. British J Occup Ther. 1980;43:44–46.
    1. Lincoln NB, Edmans JA. A re-validation of the Rivermead ADL scale for elderly patients with stroke. Age Ageing. 1990;19:19–24.
    1. Nouri F, Lincoln N. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:301–305.
    1. Rossier P, Wade DT, Murphy M. An initial investigation of the reliability of the Rivermead Extended ADL index in patients presenting with neurological impairment. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:61–70.
    1. van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Schuling J, Bossuyt PM, van den Bos GA. A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke. 1997;28:2155–2161.
    1. van de Port I, et al. Monitoring the functional health status of stroke patients: the value of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2004;26:635–640.
    1. van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, van den Bos GA. Clinical meaning of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30 and the Sickness Impact Profile-136. Stroke. 2000;31:2610–2615.
    1. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140.
    1. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection Americans Investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–963.
    1. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, Wang YH, Liu JS, Hsieh CJ, Lin SF. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:486–492.
    1. Trigg R, Wood VA. The Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO): a new measure for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:288–299.
    1. Trigg R, Wood VA. The validation of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO). Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:283–289.
    1. Kersten P, Ashburn A, George S, Low J. The subjective index for physical and social outcome (SIPSO) in stroke: investigation of its subscale structure. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:26.
    1. Jones F, Partridge C, Reid F. The Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: measuring individual confidence in functional performance after stroke. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17:244–252.
    1. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke. 1999;30:1362–1369.
    1. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Biller J. Measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to stroke patients. Neurology. 1999;53:1839–1843.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다