4.2 Article

Exercise and quality of life after first-ever ischaemic stroke: a two-year follow-up study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 128, Issue 6, Pages 540-548

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2017.1400971

Keywords

Ischaemic stroke; exercise; quality of life

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673273, 30600511]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Quality of life (QoL) post-stroke is an important health outcome. Physical deconditioning and physical inactivity are highly prevalent in stroke survivors. This study aimed to assess the long-term trends in QoL and to explore the effect of exercise on the QoL of ischaemic stroke patients. Methods: Data for this prospective study were collected at baseline using face-to-face interviews, and telephone follow-ups were completed every three months from 2010 through 2014. QoL was evaluated with the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). The relationship between changes in exercise and QoL changes was analysed with a multi-level model.Results: Exercise and QoL generally increased during the study period. After adjusting for covariates, the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores increased by 0.60 on average for each unit increase in exercise frequency and by 0.52 for each hour increase in weekly exercise time. For weekly exercise times 22.73h, the PCS scores continued to increase with increasing exercise time. The Mental Component Summary scores increased by 0.51 on average for each unit increase in exercise frequency and by 0.35 for each hour increase in weekly exercise time. Furthermore, the standard deviations of exercise frequency and exercise time were inversely associated with changes in the PCS score.Conclusions: Exercise is an important modifiable behaviour. Long-term regular mild exercise should be recommended to improve QoL among stroke survivors.

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