4.4 Article

Functioning of stroke survivors - A validation of the ICF core set for stroke in Sweden

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 551-559

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903186335

Keywords

Stroke; functioning; ICF; activities and participation; body functions

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [VR K2002-27-VX-14318-01A]
  2. Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation
  3. Swedish Association of Persons with Neurological Disabilities (NHR)
  4. Norrbacka-Eugenia Foundation
  5. Foundation of the Swedish Stroke Association
  6. John and Brit Wennerstrom Foundation of Neurological Research
  7. Vastra Gotalands Handicap Committee
  8. Hjalmar Svensson Foundation
  9. AFA, Praktikertjanst AB
  10. Greta and Einar Asker Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Method. At 6 weeks and at 3 months post-stroke, stroke survivors were evaluated by 59 ICF categories of body functions, 59 categories of activities and participation from the stroke ICF core set (extended version). Results. The study sample included 99 stroke survivors (54% women) with an average age of 72 years. Statistical significant problems were identified in 28 ICF categories of body functions and in 41 ICF categories of activities and participation at both time points, at 6 weeks and at 3 months. About 17 ICF categories were reported as problems in independent (i.e. modified Rankin Scale (mRS) < 2) and about 34 categories in dependent (i.e. mRS > 2) stroke survivors. Conclusions. The results suggest a possible reduction of the stroke ICF core set from 59 to 28 categories of body functions and from 59 to 41 categories of activities and participation. Hence, feasibility of the core set for multiprofessional assessment increases and the core set might find more integration in clinical practice. The number of problems in mobility and self-care mainly distinguished between independent and dependent 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available