Objective: To examine patient activation from the start of stroke rehabilitation and its course up until the 6-month follow-up. Design: Inception cohort study with a follow-up of 6 months. Setting:... Show moreObjective: To examine patient activation from the start of stroke rehabilitation and its course up until the 6-month follow-up. Design: Inception cohort study with a follow-up of 6 months. Setting: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation facility. Participants: A total of 478 patients (N=478) with stroke who received inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, with a median age of 63.0 years (interquartile range, 56.0-70.0 years) with 308 (64.2%) being men. The study was completed by 439 patients (91.8%). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Patient activation was measured with the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) (score 0-100, 4 levels, where a higher score and level denotes more patient activation). The PAM was measured at the start of the rehabilitation (baseline) and 3 and 6 months thereafter and was analyzed using the multivariate mixed model analysis. Results: At baseline, the mean PAM score was 60.2 +/- 14.3, with the number of patients in PAM levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 being 76 (17.8%), 85 (19.9%), 177 (41.4%), and 90 (21.0%), respectively. The multivariate mixed-model analysis demonstrated that the PAM score increased over time (baseline 60.2 +/- 14.3 vs 3 months 60.7 +/- 14.8 vs 6 months 61.9 +/- 18.0; P.007). Between baseline and 6 months, 122 patients (41.4%) remained at the same PAM level, 105 patients (35.6%) increased, and 68 patients (23.1%) decreased. At all time points, > 35% of patients were in level 1 or 2. Conclusions: PAM scores increased slightly over time from the start of rehabilitation up to the 6-month follow-up. However, more than one-third of patients remained at low levels (ie, level 1 and 2) of patient activation, which indicates that specific interventions during rehabilitation to increase patient activation might be of value. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2022;103:1360-7 (c) 2022 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Show less
Meijeren-Pont, W. van; Tamminga, S.J.; Fiocco, M.; Avila, A.G.; Volker, G.; Janssen, S.M.J.; ... ; Grp 2022
Objective: To examine patient activation from the start of stroke rehabilitation and its course up until the 6-month follow-up. Design: Inception cohort study with a follow-up of 6 months. Setting:... Show moreObjective: To examine patient activation from the start of stroke rehabilitation and its course up until the 6-month follow-up. Design: Inception cohort study with a follow-up of 6 months. Setting: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation facility. Participants: A total of 478 patients (N=478) with stroke who received inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, with a median age of 63.0 years (interquartile range, 56.0-70.0 years) with 308 (64.2%) being men. The study was completed by 439 patients (91.8%). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Patient activation was measured with the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) (score 0-100, 4 levels, where a higher score and level denotes more patient activation). The PAM was measured at the start of the rehabilitation (baseline) and 3 and 6 months thereafter and was analyzed using the multivariate mixed model analysis. Results: At baseline, the mean PAM score was 60.2 +/- 14.3, with the number of patients in PAM levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 being 76 (17.8%), 85 (19.9%), 177 (41.4%), and 90 (21.0%), respectively. The multivariate mixed-model analysis demonstrated that the PAM score increased over time (baseline 60.2 +/- 14.3 vs 3 months 60.7 +/- 14.8 vs 6 months 61.9 +/- 18.0; P.007). Between baseline and 6 months, 122 patients (41.4%) remained at the same PAM level, 105 patients (35.6%) increased, and 68 patients (23.1%) decreased. At all time points, > 35% of patients were in level 1 or 2. Conclusions: PAM scores increased slightly over time from the start of rehabilitation up to the 6-month follow-up. However, more than one-third of patients remained at low levels (ie, level 1 and 2) of patient activation, which indicates that specific interventions during rehabilitation to increase patient activation might be of value. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2022;103:1360-7 (c) 2022 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Show less
Objective: To estimate societal costs and changes in health-related quality of life in stroke patients, up to one year after start of medical specialist rehabilitation.& nbsp; Design:... Show moreObjective: To estimate societal costs and changes in health-related quality of life in stroke patients, up to one year after start of medical specialist rehabilitation.& nbsp; Design: Observational.& nbsp; Patients: Consecutive patients who received med ical specialist rehabilitation in the Stroke Cohort Out-comes of REhabilitation (SCORE) study.& nbsp; Methods: Participants completed questionnaires on health-related quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L), absenteeism, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare use at start and end of rehabilitation and 6 and 12 months after start. Clinical characteristics and reha-bilitation costs were extracted from the medical and financial records, respectively.& nbsp; Results: From 2014 to 2016 a total of 313 stroke patients completed the study. Mean age was 59 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 185 (59%) were male, and 244 (78%) inpatients. Mean costs for inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation were US$70,601 and US$27,473, respectively. For in-patients, utility (an expression of quality of life) in-creased significantly between baseline and 6 months (EQ-5D-3L 0.66 & ndash;0.73, p = 0.01; visual analogue scale 0.77 & ndash;0.82, p < 0.001) and between baseline and 12 months (visual analogue scale 0.77 & ndash;0.81, p < 0.001).& nbsp; Conclusion: One-year societal costs from after the start of rehabilitation in stroke patients were con-siderable. Future research should also include costs prior to rehabilitation. For inpatients, health-related quality of life, expressed in terms of utility, improved significantly over time. Show less
Objective: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional... Show moreObjective: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke.Methods: Pre-post design. The intervention comprised cognitive (Braingymmer (R)) and physical (Telere-validatie (R)/Physitrack (R)) exercises, activity-tracking (Activ8 (R)) and psycho-education. Assessments were made at admission (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). The primary outcome concerned disability (Stroke Impact Scale; SIS). Secondary outcomes were: health-related qual-ity of life, fatigue, self-management, participation and physical activity. Changes in scores be-tween T0-T3, T3-T6, and T0-T6 were compared by analysis of variance and linear mixed models.Results: The study included 153 and 165 people with stroke in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 82 (50%) people received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. Between T3 and T6, the change in scores for the SIS subscales Communication (control group/ intervention group -1.7/-0.3) and Physical strength (-5.7/3.3) were significantly greater in the total intervention group (all mean differences< minimally clinically important differences). No significant differences were found for other SIS subscales or secondary outcomes, or between T0-T3 and T0-T6.Conclusion: eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only. Show less
