There is a lack of explicit tool recommendations for upper limb (UL) assessment in stroke, occupational therapists are frequently underrepresented in consensus studies, and the frequency of use of tools is highly variable between countries. The objective was to generate national occupational therapy consensus recommendations on UL assessment tools in stroke, and to classify the tools that achieve consensus according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) components.
Methods:
Three-round e-Delphi study of national scope. Occupational therapists working in Spain with training and experience in neurorehabilitation were recruited. Rounds were based on the completion of questionnaires on UL stroke assessment tools. Consensus was reached when ⩾75% of experts gave a ⩾7 rating on a nine-point Likert scale.
Results:
A total of 29 occupational therapists comprised the expert panel. Twenty-three (17.8%) assessment tools achieved consensus and were classified according to the ICF components of body functions and structures (7), activities (11), participation (3) and other (2).
Conclusion:
The expert panel recommended 23 outcome measures for UL recovery in stroke, representing all ICF components. The consensus recommendations are intended to assist occupational therapists in their clinical decision-making process, and to reduce the heterogeneity of research tools.
AbdollahiMKuberPMShiraishiM, et al. (2022) Kinematic analysis of 360° turning in stroke survivors using wearable motion sensors. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)22: 385.
2.
AliMEnglishCBernhardtJ, et al. (2013) More outcomes than trials: A call for consistent data collection across stroke rehabilitation trials. International Journal of Stroke8: 18–24.
3.
Alt MurphyMResteghiniCFeysP, et al. (2015) An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurology15: 29.
4.
Alvarez-SabínJQuintanaMMasjuanJ, et al. (2017) Economic impact of patients admitted to stroke units in Spain. European Journal of Health Economics18: 449–458.
5.
BarrecaSRStratfordPWLambertCL, et al. (2005) Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: A new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation86: 1616–1622.
6.
BarrettDHealeR (2020) What are Delphi studies?Evidence Based Nursing23: 68–69.
7.
BayleyMTHurdowarATeasellR, et al. (2007) Priorities for stroke rehabilitation and research: Results of a 2003 Canadian Stroke Network consensus conference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation88: 526–528.
8.
BeebeJALangCE (2009) Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy33: 96–103.
9.
BertrandAMFournierKWick BraseyMG, et al. (2015) Reliability of maximal grip strength measurements and grip strength recovery following a stroke. Journal of Hand Therapy28: 356–363.
10.
BuebyJ (2021) Powerful practice: A model for authentic occupational therapy. Occupational Therapy In Health Care36: 497–498.
11.
BurridgeJAlt MurphyMBuurkeJ, et al. (2019) A systematic review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: What recommendations are made for upper limb assessment?Frontiers in Neurology10: 567.
12.
BushnellCBettgerJPCockroftKM, et al. (2015) Chronic stroke outcome measures for motor function intervention trials: Expert panel recommendations. Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 8(Suppl 3): S163–S169.
13.
ChangFHCosterWJHelfrichCA (2013) Community participation measures for people with disabilities: A systematic review of content from an international classification of functioning, disability and health perspective. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation94: 771–781.
14.
ChanubolRWongphaetPChavanich OtN, et al. (2012) Correlation between the action research arm test and the box and block test of upper extremity function in stroke patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand95: 590–597.
15.
ConnellLATysonSF (2011) Measures of sensation in neurological conditions: A systematic review. Clin Rehabil26(1): 68–80.
16.
ConnellLATysonSF (2012) Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation93: 221–228.
17.
Cuesta-GarcíaCSimón-VicenteLCarpena-NiñoMG, et al. (2021) Evaluación de la funcionalidad del miembro superior en personas adultas con daño cerebral adquirido realizada por los/as profesionales de la terapia ocupacional en España, estudio transversal. Journal of MOVE and Therapeutic Science3: 309–318.
18.
de VilliersMRde VilliersPJTKentAP (2009) The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Medical Teacher27: 639–643.
19.
DiamondIRGrantRCFeldmanBM, et al. (2014) Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology67: 401–409.
20.
DuncanPWWallaceDLaiSM, et al. (1999) The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke30: 2131–2140.
21.
FeiginVLKrishnamurthiRVTheadomAM, et al. (2017) Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet Neurology16: 877–897.
22.
FeiginVLStarkBAJohnsonCO, et al. (2021) Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. Neurology20: 795–820.
23.
FisherAG (1993) The assessment of IADL motor skills: An application of many-faceted rasch analysis. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy47: 319–329.
24.
FisherAGJonesKB (2012) Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Vol. 2: User Manual, 7th edn.Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.
25.
FranceschiniMLa PortaFAgostiM, et al. (2010) Is health-related-quality of life of stroke patients influenced by neurological impairments at one year after stroke?European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine46: 389–399.
26.
HallDASmithHHeffernanE, et al. (2018) Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: Evaluating the COMiT’ID study. PLoS One13: e0201378.
27.
HebertDLindsayMPMcIntyreA, et al. (2016) Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Stroke rehabilitation practice guidelines, update 2015. International Journal of Stroke11: 459–484.
28.
HohmannEBrandJCRossiMJ, et al. (2018) Expert opinion is necessary: Delphi panel methodology facilitates a scientific approach to consensus. Arthroscopy34. 349–351.
29.
HughesAMBouçasSBBurridgeJH, et al. (2016) Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: A European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation13: 1–14.
30.
Humphrey-MurtoSde WitM (2019) The Delphi method-more research please. Journal of clinical epidemiology106: 136–139.
31.
IngramLAButlerAAWalshLD, et al. (2019) The upper limb Physiological Profile assessment: Description, reliability, normative values and criterion validity. PLoS One14: e0218553.
32.
JüngerSPayneSABrineJ, et al. (2017) Guidance on conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliative Medicine31: 684–706.
33.
KeeneySHassonFMcKennaH (2006) Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing53: 205–212.
34.
KeeneySHassonFMckennaH (2011) The Delphi Technique. In: Mckenna H (ed) The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–17.
35.
KwakkelGKollenBJVan der GrondJ V, et al. (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: Impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke34: 2181–2186.
36.
KwakkelGLanninNABorschmannK, et al. (2017) Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke12: 451–461.
37.
KwakkelGVan WegenEEHBurridgeJH, et al. (2019) Standardized measurement of quality of upper limb movement after stroke: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke14: 783–791.
38.
LangCEBlandMDBaileyRR, et al. (2013) Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: Foundations for clinical decision making. Journal of Hand Therapy26: 104–115.
39.
LawrenceESCoshallCDundasR, et al. (2001) Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke32: 1279–1284.
40.
LemmensRJMTimmermansAAAJanssen-PottenYJM, et al. (2012) Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: A systematic review. BMC Neurology12: 21.
41.
LiY-CLiaoW-WHsiehY-W, et al. (2020) Predictors of clinically important changes in actual and perceived functional arm use of the affected upper limb after rehabilitative therapy in chronic stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation101: 442–449.
42.
LinJHHsuMJSheuCF, et al. (2009) Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Physical Therapy89: 840–850.
43.
LincolnNBJacksonJMAdamsSA (1998) Reliability and revision of the nottingham sensory assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy84: 358–365.
44.
MetcalfCAdamsJBurridgeJ, et al. (2007) A review of clinical upper limb assessments within the framework of the WHO ICF. Musculoskeletal Care5: 160–173.
45.
MillarJDvan WijckFPollockA, et al. (2019) Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: Do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?Clinical Rehabilitation33: 737–749.
46.
MillarJDVan WijckFPollockA, et al. (2021) International consensus recommendations for outcome measurement in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine57: 61–68.
47.
MorrisDMUswatteGCragoJE, et al. (2001) The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation82: 750–755.
48.
MorrisJHVan WijckFJoiceS, et al. (2013) Predicting health related quality of life 6 months after stroke: The role of anxiety and upper limb dysfunction. Disability and Rehabilitation35: 291–299.
49.
MurphyMKBlackNALampingDL, et al. (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment2(3): 1–88.
50.
NasaPJainRJunejaD (2021) Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World Journal of Methodology11: 116–129.
51.
NijlandRHMVan WegenEEHHarmeling-VanDerWelBC, et al. (2010) Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: Early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: The EPOS cohort study. Stroke41: 745–750.
52.
OlverJYangSFedeleB, et al. (2021) Post Stroke Outcome: Global Insight into Persisting Sequelae Using the Post Stroke Checklist. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases30: 105612.
53.
PhippsSRichardsonP (2007) Occupational therapy outcomes for clients with traumatic brain injury and stroke using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The American journal of Occupational Therapy61: 328–334.
54.
PlatzTPinkowskiCvan WijckF, et al. (2005) Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: A multicentre study. Clinical Rehabilitation19: 404–411.
55.
PohlJHeldJPOVerheydenG, et al. (2020) Consensus-based core set of outcome measures for clinical motor rehabilitation after stroke—A Delphi Study. Frontiers in Neurology11: 875.
56.
PollockAFarmerSEBradyMC, et al. (2014) Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2014(11): CD010820.
57.
PoulinVKorner-BitenskyNDawsonDR (2013) Stroke-specific executive function assessment: A literature review of performance-based tools. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal60: 3–19.
58.
Prange-LasonderGBAlt MurphyMLamersI, et al. (2021) European evidence-based recommendations for clinical assessment of upper limb in neurorehabilitation (CAULIN): Data synthesis from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation18: 1–12.
59.
PumpaLUCahillLSCareyLM (2015) Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: An evidence-practice gap. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal62: 93–104.
60.
SalterKLFoleyNCJutaiJW, et al. (2007) Assessment of participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation interventions. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research30: 339–342.
61.
SantistebanLTérémetzMBletonJP, et al. (2016) Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: A systematic literature review. PLoS One11: e0154792.
62.
SchwarzAKanzlerCMLambercyO, et al. (2019) Systematic review on kinematic assessments of upper limb movements after stroke. Stroke50: 718–727.
63.
SteeleKMPapazianCFeldnerHA (2020) Muscle activity after stroke: Perspectives on deploying surface electromyography in acute care. Frontiers in Neurology11: 576757.
64.
Stolk-HornsveldFCrowJLHendriksEP, et al. (2006) The Erasmus MC modifications to the (revised) Nottingham Sensory Assessment: A reliable somatosensory assessment measure for patients with intracranial disorders. Clinical Rehabilitation20: 160–172.
65.
SullivanJECrownerBEKludingPM, et al. (2013) Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: Process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Physical Therapy93: 1383–1396.
66.
TeasellRSalbachNMFoleyN, et al. (2020) Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Rehabilitation, recovery, and community participation following Stroke. Part One: Rehabilitation and recovery following stroke; 6th Edition Update 2019. International Journal of Stroke15: 763–788.
67.
TogliaJAskinGGerberLM, et al. (2019) Participation in younger and older adults post-stroke: Frequency, importance, and desirability of engagement in activities. Frontiers in Neurology10: 1108.
68.
VelstraIMBallertCSCiezaA (2011) A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health as reference. PM&R3: 846–860.
69.
VillepinteCCatellaEMartinM, et al. (2019) Validation of French upper limb Erasmus modified Nottingham sensory assessment in stroke. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine62: 35–42.
70.
WangTNLinKCWuCY, et al. (2011) Validity, Responsiveness, and Clinically Important Difference of the ABILHAND Questionnaire in Patients With Stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation92: 1086–1091.
71.
YangSYLinCYLeeYC, et al. (2017) The Canadian occupational performance measure for patients with stroke: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Therapy Science29: 548–555.
72.
Zamarro-RodríguezBDGómez-MartínezMCuesta-GarcíaC (2021) Validation of Spanish Erasmus-Modified Nottingham Sensory Assessment Stereognosis Scale in Acquired Brain Damage. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18: 12564.
73.
ZhuGZhangXTangX, et al. (2020) Examining and monitoring paretic muscle changes during stroke rehabilitation using surface electromyography: A pilot study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering17: 216–234.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
