4.2 Article

Physical Factors Associated With Fatigue After Stroke: An Exploratory Study

Journal

TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 369-376

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1905-369

Keywords

pain; physical factors; physical fatigue; stroke

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH
  2. NHS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To look for a relationship between physical fatigue and physical parameters in patients at least 3 months post stroke. Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of 32 poststroke patients (average duration of stroke 40 months) who were recruited among in- and outpatients followed by the Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine of a university hospital. Fatigue was defined as a Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score of 4 or more. The parameters studied were age, sex, time since stroke, Demeurisse Motor Index, Barthel Index score, new Functional Ambulation Category, Berg Balance Scale, 10-meter walk test, 6-minute walk test, Dijon Physical Activity Score, Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, presence of pain, and length and area of the center of pressure displacement obtained posturographically. Results: Two-thirds of patients (65.6%) were fatigued. The mean FSS score was 4.3 +/- 1.8. Fatigue was not associated with the physical parameters studied; notably, there was no correlation with motor impairment, autonomy and walking capacity, or balance and physical activity. However, after multivariate analysis, we found an association between physical fatigue and time since the occurrence of stroke (P = .05). Conclusions: Our study revealed a relationship between pain and physical fatigue, as reported by 2 other studies. Poststroke fatigue management should include appropriate pain management. Further studies are necessary to determine the causes of physical fatigue after stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available