4.2 Article

Community Integration and Quality of Life in Aphasia after Stroke

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 1694-1702

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.6.1694

关键词

Stroke; aphasia; quality of life; community integration

资金

  1. Korea University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To examine community integration and contributing factors in people with aphasia (PWA) following stroke and to investigate the relationship between community integration and quality of life (QOL). Materials and Methods: Thirty PWA and 42 age-and education-matched control subjects were involved. Main variables were as follows: socioeconomic status, mobility, and activity of daily living (ADL) (Modified Barthel Index), language function [Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST)], depression [Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)], Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39). Differences between aphasia and control groups and factors affecting community integration and QOL were analyzed. Results: Home and social integration and productive activity were significantly decreased in the aphasia group compared to the control group; 8.5 and 18.3 points in total CIQ score, respectively. Amount of time spent outside the home and frequency of social contact were also significantly reduced in the aphasia group. Total mean score on the SAQOL-39 was 2.75 +/- 0.80 points and was significantly correlated with economic status, gait performance, ADL, depressive mood, and social domain score on the CIQ. Depression score measured by GDS was the single most important factor for the prediction of QOL, but the FAST score was significantly correlated only with the communication domain of the SAQOL-39. Conclusion: Community activities of PWA were very limited, and depression was highly associated with decreased community integration and QOL. Enhancing social participation and reducing emotional distress should be emphasized for rehabilitation of PWA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据