Impact of factors indicating a poor prognosis on stroke rehabilitation effectiveness

Abstract

This study examines the impact of factors indicating a poor prognosis on rehabilitation effectiveness of 124 first stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive rehabilitation unit in Kitakyushu, Japan. A multiple regression model, employing a forced entry of variables guided by prior studies on these factors, found four significant factors. Lack of motivation, urinary incontinence, each 10 years of age, and each day's delay from stroke onset to the commencement of rehabilitation reduced the rehabilitation effectiveness by 20%, 15%, 4%, and 0.1% respectively. The values of beta-coefficients showed that onset-rehabilitation delay and lack of motivation were relatively important in our model. These findings are consistent with clinical impressions and provide useful information for planning stroke rehabilitation programmes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dombovy ML , Sandok BA , Basford JR Rehabilitation for stroke: a review. Stroke 1986; 17: 363-69.

Jongbloed L. Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke 1986; 17: 765-76.

Anderson TP Studies up to 1980 on stroke rehabilitation outcomes. Stroke 1990; 21: 1143-45.

Anderson TP , Bourestom N. , Greenberg FR et al. Predictive factors in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1974; 55: 545-53.

Bourestom NC Predictors of long-term recovery in cerebrovascular disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1967; 48: 415-19.

Kotila M. , Waltimo O. , Niemi ML et al. The profile of recovery from stroke and factors influencing outcome. Stroke 1984; 15: 1039-44.

Feigenson JS , McDowell FH , Meese P. et al. Factors influencing outcome and length of stay in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Stroke 1977; 8: 651-56.

Lehmann JF , DeLateur BJ , Fowler RS et al. Stroke rehabilitation: outcome and prediction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1975; 56: 383-89.

Wade DT , Skilbeck CE , Hewer RL Predicting Barthel ADL score at six months after an acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983; 64: 24-28.

10.

Wade DT , Hewer RL Functional abilities after stroke: management, natural history and prognosis . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177-82.

11.

Lind K. A synthesis of studies on stroke rehabilitation. J Chronic Dis 1982; 35: 133-49.

12.

Heinemann AW , Roth EJ , Cichowski K. et al. Multivariate analysis of improvement and outcome following stroke rehabilitation. Arch Neurol 1987; 44: 1167-72.

13.

Smith ME , Garraway WM , Smith DL et al. Therapy impact on functional outcome in a controlled trial of stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982; 63: 21-24.

14.

Shah S. , Vanclay F. , Cooper B. Predicting discharge status at commencement of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1989; 20: 766-69.

15.

Wylie CM The value of early rehabilitation in stroke. Geriatrics 1970; 25: 107-13.

16.

Shah S. , Vanclay F. , Cooper B. Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1990; 21: 241-46.

17.

Novack TA , Satterfield WT , Lyons K. et al. Stroke onset and rehabilitation: time lag as a factor in treatment outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984; 65: 316-19.

18.

Schlesselman JJ Case-control studies: design, conduct, analysis . New York: Oxford University Press , 1982.

19.

Brunnstrom S. Movement therapy in hemiplegia. New York: Harper & Row, 1970 .

20.

Mahoney FI , Barthel DW Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61-65.

21.

The committee for developing the standard language test of aphasia. Manual of directions for the standard language test of aphasia. Tokyo: Homeido , 1975.

22.

Vanclay F. Functional outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1991; 22: 105-108.

23.

Spss. SPSS reference guide . Chicago: SPSS, 1990.

24.

Kleinbaum DG , Kupper LL , Muller KE Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, second edition . Boston: PWS-KENT, 1987.

25.

Kahn HA , Sempos CT Statistical methods in epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.