4.6 Article

The severity of cognitive deficits predicts return to work after a first-ever ischaemic stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages 316-321

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302629

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA)
  2. Lapland Hospital District EVO-fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The inability of stroke patients to return to work contributes disproportionately to the socioeconomic impact of stroke and is best predicted by the severity of stroke. However, the role of cognitive deficits in stroke severity has not been scrutinised. We studied whether the initial cognitive severity of stroke, compared with other influential factors, predicts the inability to return to work after stroke. Methods Consecutive patients aged 18-65 with a first-ever ischaemic stroke, working full time previously, were assessed neuropsychologically within the first weeks after stroke and at the 6-month follow-up. Similarly, 50 healthy demographic controls were assessed twice. The cognitive severity of stroke was operationalised as the number of initial cognitive deficits. Cognitive severity as a predictor of the inability to return to work was compared with demographic, occupational, neurological, radiological and functional data, vascular risk factors and mood state. Results The mean age of the 140 patients assessed both initially and at follow-up was 52 years. They had a mean of 13 years of education and 59% were men. At 6 months, only 41% of the patients had returned to work despite the relatively minor neurological and functional impairments of the cohort. In our model, the number of early cognitive deficits (OR = 2.252, CI 1.294 to 3.918) was the only significant predictor of the inability to return to work. Conclusions The initial cognitive severity of stroke predicts the later inability to return to work. The benefits of neuropsychological assessments within the first weeks after stroke are emphasised.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available