Purpose: To assess the presence of upper extremity pain after stroke over time and the course of its intensity in patients with persistent pain. Materials and methods: Patients with stroke... Show morePurpose: To assess the presence of upper extremity pain after stroke over time and the course of its intensity in patients with persistent pain. Materials and methods: Patients with stroke completed a question on the presence of upper extremity pain (yes/no) and rated its intensity with a visual analogue scale (0-10) at 3, 18, and 30 months after starting multidisciplinary rehabilitation. The presence of upper extremity pain and its intensity over time were analysed with Generalized Estimating Equations models and Linear Mixed Models, respectively. Results: 678 patients were included. The proportions of patients reporting upper extremity pain were 41.8, 36.0, and 32.7% at 3, 18, and 30 months, respectively, with the decline in proportions reaching statistical significance (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.92, p < 0.001). At all time points, in those reporting pain the median intensity was 5.0 (interquartile ranges (IQR) 4.0-7.0 at 3 and 3.0-6.0 at 18 and 30 months). In the 73 patients with persistent pain, there was no significant change in intensity over time. Conclusions: The proportion of patients reporting upper extremity pain after stroke was considerable, despite a significant decrease in 2.5 years. In patients reporting persistent pain, the intensity did not change over time. Show less
Brouns, B.; Meesters, J.J.L.; Kloet, A.J. de; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Houdijk, S.; Arwert, H.J.; Bodegom-Vos, L. van 2022
Background Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) - including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education -... Show moreBackground Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) - including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education - after stroke resulted in health-related improvements. This study investigated what worked and why in the implementation. Methods Implementation activities (information provision, integration of Fast@home, instruction and motivation) were performed for 14 months and evaluated, using the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations which consists of three evaluation domains (implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors). Implementation activities were evaluated by field notes/surveys/user data, it's mechanisms of impact by surveys and contextual factors by field notes/interviews among 11 professionals. Surveys were conducted among 51 professionals and 73 patients. User data (n = 165 patients) were extracted from the eRehabilitation applications. Results Implementation activities were executed as planned. Of the professionals trained to deliver the intervention (33 of 51), 25 (75.8%) delivered it. Of the 165 patients, 82 (49.7%) were registered for Fast@home, with 54 patient (65.8%) using it. Mechanisms of impact showed that professionals and patients were equally satisfied with implementation activities (median score 7.0 [IQR 6.0-7.75] versus 7.0 [6.0-7.5]), but patients were more satisfied with the intervention (8.0 [IQR 7.0-8.0] versus 5.5 [4.0-7.0]). Guidance by professionals was seen as most impactful for implementation by patients and support of clinical champions and time given for training by professionals. Professionals rated the integration of Fast@home as insufficient. Contextual factors (financial cutbacks and technical setbacks) hampered the implementation. Conclusion Main improvements of the implementation of eRehabilitation are related to professionals' perceptions of the intervention, integration of eRehabilitation and contextual factors.Implication for rehabilitation To increase the use of eRehabilitation by patients, patients should be supported by their healthcare professional in their first time use and during the rehabilitation process. To increase the use of eRehabilitation by healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals should be (1) supported by a clinical champion and (2) provided with sufficient time for learning to work and getting familiar with the eRehabilitation program. Integration of eRehabilitation in conventional stroke rehabilitation (optimal blended care) is an important challenge and a prerequisite for the implementation of eRehabilitation in the clinical setting. Show less
Meijeren-Pont, W. van; Volker, G.; Vlieland, T.V.; Goossens, P. 2019
Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER) to the responsiveness of the Barthel Index in stroke patients in an inpatient rehabilitation... Show moreObjective: To compare the responsiveness of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER) to the responsiveness of the Barthel Index in stroke patients in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Design: Observational study. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation facility. Subjects: Consecutive stroke patients admitted for clinical rehabilitation. Interventions: Not applicable. Main measures: The USER and the Barthel Index were administered by a nurse at admission and discharge. The Effect Size and Standardized Response Mean (SRM) were calculated as measures of responsiveness. Results: From 198 (78%) of the 254 patients who were included in the study period, both admission and discharge data were available. At admission the mean score of the USER subscale Functional independence was 43.1 (SD = 18.9) and at discharge the mean score was 59.3 (SD = 13.8). The mean score of the Barthel Index at admission was 13.3 (SD = 5.4) and at discharge 18.4 (SD = 3.3). The Effect Size of the USER subscales Mobility, Self-care, Cognitive functioning, Pain, Fatigue and Mood were 0.85, 0.77, 0.48, 0.19, 0.40 and 0.28, respectively, and of the Barthel Index 0.94. The results for the SRM were in the same range. Conclusion: In inpatient rehabilitation after stroke, the USER was less responsive than the Barthel Index. Show less
Ridder, I.R. de; Dijkland, S.A.; Scheele, M.; Hertog, H.M. den; Dirks, M.; Westendorp, W.F.; ... ; Dippel, D.W.J. 2018
