4.4 Article

Korean Stroke Cohort for functioning and rehabilitation (KOSCO): study rationale and protocol of a multi-centre prospective cohort study

Journal

BMC NEUROLOGY
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0293-5

Keywords

Stroke; Disability; Function; Rehabilitation; Burden

Funding

  1. Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention [2013E3301702]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Development of a long-term stroke care plan requires serial assessment of long-term patient function and consideration of caregiver mood. However, to date, few comprehensive cohort studies have included both stroke patients and caregivers. Methods/Design: KOSCO is a large, multi-centre prospective cohort study for all acute first-ever stroke patients admitted to participating hospitals in nine distinct areas of Korea. This study is designed as a 10-year, longitudinal follow-up investigating the residual disabilities, activity limitations, and quality of life issues arising in patients suffering from first-ever stroke. The main objectives of this study are to identify the factors that influence residual disability and long-term quality of life. The secondary objectives of this study are to determine the risk of mortality and recurrent vascular events in patients with acute first-ever stroke. We will investigate longitudinal health behaviors and patterns of healthcare utilization, including stroke rehabilitation care. We will also investigate the long-term health status, mood, and quality of life in stroke patient caregivers. In addition, we will identify baseline and ongoing characteristics that are associated with our secondary outcomes. Discussion: KOSCO is a prospective, multi-centre, 10-year longitudinal follow-up study investigating the residual disabilities, activity limitations, and quality of life issues arising in patients suffering from first-ever 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available