4.4 Article

Performance and capacity-based measures of locomotion, compared to impairment-based measures, best predicted participation in individuals with hemiparesis due to stroke

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 40, Issue 15, Pages 1791-1798

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1312570

Keywords

Stroke; social participation; rehabilitation

Categories

Funding

  1. CNPq
  2. FAPEMIG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the potential predictors of participation of individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis, taking into account modifiable variables of impairments, activity limitations, and environmental factors. Methods: One hundred and nine individuals (58 +/- 12 years; 64 men) participated in this study. Outcomes included measures of impairments (depressive symptoms: Geriatric Depression Scale and motor-based impairments: finger-to-nose test, lower extremity (LE) motor coordination test, and handgrip strength, isometric strength of the LE muscles), activity (capacity: 10-meter walking speed test and Test d'Evaluation des Membres Superieurs de Personnes Agees; performance: locomotion and manual abilities; environmental factors (Measure of the Quality of the Environment); and participation: Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H 3.1 Brazil)). Results: Regression analyses revealed that the explanatory variables accounted for 59% and 49% of the variance in the LIFE-H 3.1 Brazil daily activity and social role sub-scales, respectively. Locomotion performance (R-2 = 39%; p < 0.0001) and walking speed (R-2 = 32%; p < 0.0001) were the best predictors of the LIFE-H 3.1 Brazil daily activity and social role sub-scales, respectively. Depressive symptoms were the only impairments, which were retained in both models. Conclusions: Performance and capacity-based measures of locomotion showed to be the best predictors of participation. Additionally, depressive symptoms should not be underlooked.

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