Objectives: (1) To examine the relationships between measures of impairment and disability for the arm and leg with a measure of handicap and (2) to identify the impairment or disability most strongly related to handicap situations.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Intensive functional rehabilitation unit and community.
Patients: One hundred and two persons who had a stroke.
Main outcome measures: Arm and leg impairments and disabilities were evaluated with reliable and valid tests at discharge from rehabilitation. Six months later, handicap situations were evaluated with the Assessments of Life Habits (LIFE-H).
Results: Arm and leg impairments and disabilities are correlated with handicap situations. Disability of the leg is more strongly associated with handicap than arm disability. Arm and leg disabilities are not statistically more strongly related to handicap than arm and leg impairments.
Conclusions: The high correlations found between handicap situations and the impairment and disability measures of the leg provide new information that support the importance of mobility to promote integration after stroke.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Gresham GE, Phillips TF, Wolf PA, McNamara PM, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. Epidemiologic profile of long-term stroke disability: The Framingham Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 487–491.
2.
Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion SA, St-Michel G. Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res1998; 21: 127–141.
3.
Ferrucci L, Bandinelli S, Guralnik JM et al. Recovery of functional status after stroke: a postrehabilitation follow-up study. Stroke1993; 24: 200–205.
4.
Kotila M, Waltimo O, Niemi ML, Laaksonen R, Lempinen BA. The profile of recovery from stroke and factors influencing outcome. Stroke1984; 15: 1039–1044.
5.
Lindmark B. Evaluation of functional capacity after stroke with special emphasis on motor function and activities of daily living. Scand J Rehabil Med1988; 20: 1–40.
6.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. I – A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med1975; 7: 13–31.
7.
Berglund K, Fugl-Meyer AR. Upper extremity function in hemiplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med1986; 38: 155–157.
8.
de Weert WJG, Harrison MA. Measuring recovery of arm-hand function in stroke patients: Comparison of Brunnstrom-Fugl-Meyer Test and Action Research Arm test. Physiother Can1985; 37: 65–70.
9.
Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther1993; 73: 447–454.
10.
Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Bravo G, Dutil É. Upper extremity motor coordination of healthy elderly people. Age Ageing1995; 24: 108–112.
11.
Swaine BR, Sullivan SJ. Reliability of the scores for the finger-to-nose test in adults with traumatic brain injury. Phys Ther1993; 73: 71–78.
12.
Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Dutil É, Bravo G. Development and reliability of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: the TEMPA. Can J Occup Ther1993; 60: 9–16.
13.
Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Dutil É, Bravo G, Mercier L. Validity of a measurement instrument for upper extremity performance: the TEMPA. Occup Ther J Res1994; 14: 267–281.
14.
Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can1989; 41: 304–311.
15.
Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The balance scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med1995; 27: 27–36.
16.
Berg K, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee S. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 1073–1080.
17.
Wade D, Wood V, Heller A, Maggs J, Langton-Hewer R. Walking after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. Scand J Rehabil Med1987; 9: 25–30.
18.
Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F, Tardif D. Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In: Craik R, Oatis C eds. Gait analysis: theory and applications. St Louis: Mosby, 1995: 355–364.
19.
Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 1204–1212.
20.
Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
21.
Dean C, Richards CL, Malouin F. Walking speed over 10 metres overestimates locomotor capacity after stroke. Clin Rehabil2001; 15: 415–421.
22.
Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L. Life habits measure – shortened version (LIFE-H 2.1). Lac St-Charles, Québec, Canada: CQCIDIH, 1997.
Sturm JW, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Macdonell RA, McNeil JJ, Thrift AG. Handicap after stroke: how does it relate to disability, perception of recovery, and stroke subtype?: the north North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke2002; 33: 762–768.
25.
Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1994; 57: 825–829.
26.
Pohjasvaara T, Erkinjuntti T, Vataja R, Kaste M. Correlates of dependent living 3 months after ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis1998; 8: 259–266.
27.
Clarke PJ, Black SE, Badley EM, Lawrence JM, Williams JI. Handicap in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 116–123.
28.
Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S et al. Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 258–268.
29.
Radomski MV. There is more to life than putting on your pants. Am J Occup Ther1995; 49: 487–490.
30.
Tyson SF. Stroke rehabilitation. What is the point?Physiotherapy1995; 81: 430–432.
31.
Drummond A. Leisure activity after stroke. Int J Disabil Stud1990; 12: 157–160.
32.
Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Horner RD, Landsman PB, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Similar motor recovery of upper and lower extremities after stroke. Stroke1994: 25: 1181–1188.
