4.5 Article

Participation after stroke compared to normal aging

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 353-357

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.1080/16501970510037096

Keywords

participation; aging; stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the reduction in participation of people who have had a stroke compared with healthy people with normal aging. Design: Participation of people who had a stroke was compared with participation of healthy subjects. Subjects/patients: Forty-six people who had a stroke for 2 - 4 years and 46 healthy participants matched on age, sex and living environment. Measurements: Participation was estimated with the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). The LIFE-H ( short version 2.1) is composed of 58 daily activities and social roles associated to the 12 categories of the Disability Creation Process model. The LIFE-H gives separate scores for each category, for 2 main subsections Daily activities and Social roles and a total score. Results: Scores of healthy subjects did not reach the maximum value (9/9) of the LIFE-H, their mean scores varying from 6.3 to 8.6, according to the categories. These scores are higher than of the participants with stroke for all categories ( scores varying from 3.9 to 6.5; p-values from 0.002 to < 0.001), except the interpersonal relationships category ( score of 7.8 vs 8.0) where no difference was found ( p = 0.49). The disruption in participation after stroke varies according to the categories of the LIFE-H, but is more important in the daily activities categories. Conclusion: The comparison of the scores obtained by the 2 groups suggests that a part of the reduction in participation in daily activities and social roles after stroke is attributable to normal aging and not entirely to the stroke itself. It helps to focus interventions on activities and roles disruption domains that are really attributable to 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available