(Stroke. 2000;31:2995.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Quality of Life Among Stroke Survivors Evaluated 1 Year After Stroke
Experience of a Stroke Unit
From the Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Correspondence to Dr Javier Carod-Artal, Servicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Calle Profesor Martín Lagos s/n, CP 28040, Madrid, Spain. E-mail javier{at}bsb.sarah.br
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—We sought to study overall and domain-specific quality of life in stroke survivors 1 year after stroke and to identify variables that could predict quality of life after stroke.
Methods—We followed up for 1 year a cohort of 118 patients consecutively admitted to our stroke unit at San Carlos University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. The final series at 1-year follow-up consisted of 90 survivors (41 women and 49 men; mean age, 68 years; range, 32 to 90 years). A cross-sectional, descriptive design was developed. Patients completed a questionnaire that included socioeconomic variables, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Short Form 36, Frenchay Index, Barthel Index, Rankin Scale, and Scandinavian Stroke Scale. Independent variables were sex, age, functional status, motor impairment, and depression. We developed an ANOVA model for statistical analysis.
Results—We interviewed 79 patients with ischemic and 11 with hemorrhagic stroke. Thirty-eight percent of patients scored in the depressed range. Variables related to depression were status as a housewife, female sex, inability to work because of disability, and diminished social activity (P<0.0001). Mean total SIP (24.3), SIP psychosocial dimension (27.5), and SIP physical dimension (21.2) were correlated with disability, female sex, motor impairment, and depression (P<0.0001).
Conclusions—Functional status and depression were identified as predictors of quality of life. Patients independent in their activities of daily living suffered from a deterioration of the psychosocial dimension of the SIP.
Key Words: disability evaluation • quality of life • stroke assessment • stroke outcome
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Stroke is a major public health issue. The long-term consequences of stroke have been recognized in recent years. Traditionally, epidemiological stroke studies focused on mortality and recurrence1 2 but not on quality of life (QOL) issues. The prevalence of stroke survivors with incomplete recovery has been estimated at 460/100 000.3 First-year mortality has been estimated between 15% and 25%, recurrence between 5% and 14%, and partial or complete disability between 24% and 54%.4
QOL related to stroke and life satisfaction after stroke are important healthcare outcomes that have not received sufficient attention in the literature. The Barthel Index (BI) and the Rankin Scale have been the most frequent outcome measures used in stroke research, focusing on stroke-related disability and recovery of motor function after stroke.5 6 7 8 9 However, stroke patients have a broad range of impairments and a wide spectrum of symptom severity and sequelae. Some aspects of QOL considered important by the patients have been studied infrequently.
A multidimensional approach is necessary to measure QOL. QOL assessment includes at least 4 dimensions: physical, functional, psychological, and social health.10 The physical health dimension refers to disease-related symptoms. Functional health comprises self-care, mobility, and the capacity to perform various family and work roles. Psychological dimension includes cognitive and emotional functions (eg, vascular dementia and poststroke depression) and subjective perceptions of health and life satisfaction. Social dimension includes social and familial contacts.
The multidimensional approach of perceived health status in stroke patients has received attention only in the last few years.11 12 Consequences of stroke and health status affect even mild strokes.13 However, evaluation of QOL data in stroke is complicated by several factors. These include the use of nonstandardized measures, comparison of samples taken from patients with wide variability in their condition since symptom onset, and variability of treatment regimens from centers of contrasting orientation such as rehabilitation centers and general wards versus stroke units.
There are few studies of QOL in stroke units.14 Most published works focused on rehabilitation centers or general neurology wards. European QOL studies have been centered for some time in Scandinavian12 15 16 17 but not in Mediterranean countries. These studies reported diminished global, leisure, sexual, and work-related satisfaction.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The purposes of this study were to examine global and domain-specific QOL in individuals treated with a standardized approach to treatment and outcome measurement in a stroke unit located in Madrid, Spain.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We followed up for 1 year (1996 to 1997) a cohort of 118 patients consecutively admitted to our stroke unit at San Carlos University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. The stroke unit takes care of all stroke patients admitted to our Neurology Department. We studied all patients admitted to the stroke unit between July 1 and December 31, 1996. Patients with advanced age or coma at stroke onset were admitted to the stroke unit; patients with severe comorbidity were not. Patients affected by a subarachnoid hemorrhage or transient ischemic attack and those who died during the acute stage were excluded from the study. Diagnosis of stroke was confirmed by clinical and/or radiological findings.18 The Oxfordshire classification19 was used to define stroke subtype. A cross-sectional, descriptive analysis design was developed. All interviews were conducted 1 year after stroke and were administered by the main author (J.C-A.). When cognition and language function were not adequate, QOL questionnaires were administered as a proxy and recognized as such during statistical analysis. Three patients were rated by proxy (main caregiver) for the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) because of aphasia. We did not include proxy ratings in the Short Form 36 (SF-36) subscales vitality and mental health.
Data were collected on age, sex, marital status, education, location of
brain lesion, diagnostic stroke subtype, and stroke
laterality. Independent variables included age, sex, comorbid
conditions, functional status, motor impairment, and depression.
Neurological impairment was measured with the Scandinavian Stroke Scale
(SSS)20 and handicap with the Rankin Scale.21
Information about falls was recorded from interviews with patients
and main caregivers 1 year after stroke. Activities of daily living
(ADL) were measured with the BI.22 We defined severe
disability as BI score 
60; moderate disability, 65 to 90; mild
disability, 95; and independent in ADL, 100. Instrumental ADL were
measured with the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI).23 The
FAI measures lifestyle in terms of more complex physical activities and
social functioning. The FAI rates the frequency with which respondents
perform 15 activities (eg, gardening, washing dishes) that have been
content-validated for application to the stroke
population.23 It can be measured as a total score (total
FAI) or divided into 3 subscales (domestic activities, work/pleasure,
and social activities).
QOL was measured by the SIP24 and the SF-36.25 The SIP is a well-evaluated 136-item measure organized into 12 subscales and 2 main dimensions, psychosocial and physical. The physical dimension contains items measuring a broad range of ADL, mobility, and complex physical activities. Because of its breadth, the SIP is chiefly used for cross-sectional studies. Its reliability is enhanced by using aggregated category scores for description and analysis10 rather than analyzing specific item responses. Health status measures included the SF-36, the 8 subscales of which assess general health, mental health, emotional role, physical role, social function, vitality, bodily pain, and physical function. Depression was evaluated with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.26
QOL scales were validated in Spanish by other authors.27 28 29 Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study at the time of data collection and interview. All but 2 interviews were conducted in our stroke unit; the remaining 2 patients were interviewed in a nursing home. A multifactorial ANOVA was performed to examine relations among qualitative variables and a quantitative variable. A Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple significance tests. A 2-tailed probability value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A regression model was used to correlate quantitative variables.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
One hundred eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria of the study. Seventeen patients could not be located for final follow-up at 12 months, 10 died, and 1 refused to participate. Marital status, age, and sex were not significantly different among participants and nonparticipants. Ninety survivors were available at 1-year follow-up, consisting of 41 women and 49 men with a mean age of 68 years, ranging from 32 to 90 years. They included 79 patients affected by ischemic stroke and 11 with hemorrhagic stroke.
Table 1
describes the sociodemographic
characteristics of the patients 12 months after stroke. In this group
64.44% of patients were older than 65 years. All individuals were
white, and slightly more than one half were male. Family support seemed
to be strong since, on average, 1.6 family members were living with the
stroke patient.
|
Table 2 describes stroke characteristics
and the distribution of other comorbid diseases. Fifty-one percent of
patients had 
3 vascular risk factors. Hypertension was the most
frequent vascular risk factor; 52.2 patients had osteoarthritis. Mean
comorbid conditions in patients numbered 2.93; when we included
vascular risk factors, the mean comorbid index increased to 5.6.
|
Seventeen patients (18.89%) had moved temporarily or permanently to a relative’s house or nursing home, for a mean time of 7.29 months; 13.3% of patients had to make modifications in the bathroom or lounge; and 31% of patients needed walking assistance, cane, or wheelchair to move 12 months after stroke. Thirty-six patients (40%) had falls after stroke at home, in the bathroom, or in the street. We measured 70 falls during the first year after stroke, with a mean fall index of 0.78 per patient year. No significant correlations were observed between falls and dimensions of SIP. After stroke, 28.89% of patients modified their habits and ceased tobacco or alcohol consumption.
Barthel Index
Mean BI score at onset was 65.8 and 1 year later was 88.5 (scoring
moderate to mild disability; P<0.0001). At 1-year
follow-up, 52% of patients were independent in their ADL, while only
32.2% of patients were independent at stroke onset. Forty percent of
patients presented total or severe disability (defined by BI
score 60) at discharge and only 11.1% at 1-year follow-up. Twenty
percent of patients were incontinent or had problems with vesical
control, 32% were dependent when bathing, and 7% were completely
dependent for personal hygiene 1 year after stroke. BI scores in women
were significantly lower than those in men (mean BI score, 80 versus
95.7; P=0.0001) at 1 year follow-up and also at onset (mean
BI score, 55.6 versus 74.3). BI scores were not significantly modified
by age. Patients with lacunar infarction had a higher BI score 1 year
after stroke than those with cortical infarctions
(P=0.0044). Table 3 shows the
comparison between BI score at stroke onset and BI score 1 year after
stroke.
|
Scandinavian Stroke Scale
The SSS total score at 1 year was 50.9. Patients with lacunar and
atherothrombotic stroke subtypes had significantly lower SSS scores.
Women had lower total SSS scores than men (mean SSS score, 47.9 versus
53.4; P=0.0014). The mean Rankin Scale score was 1 point
lower at 1 year of follow-up than at hospital discharge. According to
the modified Rankin Scale, 55 patients (62.33%) had either no symptoms
or symptoms that did not interfere with their capacity to look after
themselves (scores of 0 to 2).
Frenchay Activities Index
We used the original scoring system for FAI, with scores between 0
and 60. Mean FAI score 12 months after stroke was 36 (SD, 11); 74.5%
of patients scored >30. We found no statistically significant
differences by sex or age in the global FAI score. Men scored better in
the subscales hobby/work and social activities (P<0.001);
there were no differences by sex in the domestic work category. The 3
FAI subscales were diminished 50% in patients with severe disability
(BI score <60); social activities were significantly decreased in
patients with severe disability (P<0.0001). Patients
independent in ADL scored 42.2, patients with BI 60 scored 20, and
patients with BI between 65 and 100 scored 38.3 in total FAI. Domains
on FAI according to level of disability and FAI overall scores are
shown in Tables 4 and 5.
|
|
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression
Depression was estimated by use of the Hamilton Rating Scale for
Depression. The mean score 12 months after stroke was 13.1. A third of
patients showed depressive symptoms at discharge; 67% of patients
scored in the range of depression at the end of the year of follow-up,
with 37.7% in the range of major depression. Twelve months after
stroke, 13.3% of patients were receiving antidepressive treatment, and
24.4% were receiving sedatives. Prevalence of depression was
significantly higher in women than in men (78% versus 57%;
P=0.014), as was the severity and mean time of illness.
Neither stroke laterality, stroke subtype diagnosis, marital status,
nor educational level was correlated with depression. Two social
variables, status as a housewife and inability to work because of a
poststroke handicap, were significantly correlated with depression
(P=0.0356). Thus, poststroke depression was highly prevalent
1 year after stroke (37.7%) and was chiefly associated with female
sex, status as a housewife, handicap that affected ability to work, and
diminished social activity (P<0.0001).
Short Form 36
Mean scores in the 8 SF-36 subscales were decreased 40% from
theoretical values of reference (100). Figure 1 expresses values corrected by sex. QOL
perceived by SF-36 was significantly much lower in women
(P=0.0001); the main differences were observed in the
subscales physical functioning, mental health, emotional role, and
vitality. Bodily pain was the only subscale that significantly
decreased with age. Neither educational level nor marital status
influenced scoring. Low QOL measured by SF-36 was significantly
correlated with presence of depression and severe disability. SF-36
subscale values according to level of ADL are shown in Table 6. SF-36 social function was affected
more in disabled than in depressed patients (22.7 versus 40), while
SF-36 vitality decreased slightly more in patients with poststroke
depression (35.2 versus 41). Women perceived a lower QOL according to
SF-36 score in all dimensions of this questionnaire
(P=0.0001). SF-36 social function was correlated with the
FAI social activities category
(r2=0.62).
|
|
Sickness Impact Profile
The mean total SIP score 1 year after stroke was 24.3; mean
physical dimension score was 21.2 and psychosocial dimension 27.5. The
categories of home management (42.6), emotional activity (31.2), and
recreation (32.1) were the most altered (Figure 2). Variables related to
deterioration of QOL evaluated with SIP were female sex
(P=0.0001), cerebral anterior circulation infarction,
cardioembolic or atherothrombotic stroke subtype, depression,
disability, and sociodemographic variables such as work-related
disability and status as a housewife. Physical and psychosocial
dimension and total score of SIP showed significantly greater
deterioration in women and in subjects with severe disability and
depression (Table 6
). Patients independent in ADL 12 months
after stroke also were affected on the psychosocial dimension of SIP
(score of 21.24) even though they were clinically recovered in terms of
ADL. The most sensitive measure of depression by SIP was the category
of emotional role, with a mean value of 31. Stroke patients who were
not depressed (as measured by the Hamilton scale) scored 14 in this
category, while depressed patients scored 50.1
(P<0.0001).
|
We have shown that SIP and SF-36 are 2 valid instruments to study QOL. A strong correlation was observed between SF-36 physical functioning and SIP body movement (r2=0.79), SIP transfers (r2=0.73), SIP home management (r2=0.63), SIP physical dimension (r2=0.83), and total SIP (r2=0.67) and also between SF-36 mental health and SIP emotional role (r2=0.63), psychosocial dimension (r2=0.51), and total SIP (r2=0.49).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The aim of our study was to provide information regarding the variables that had the greatest impact on the QOL of patients treated in a stroke unit 1 year after stroke. Additionally, we wished to determine the utility of the various outcome measures developed in other cultural environments as applied to our Spanish population.
The mortality rate of 8.47% during follow-up and the 15% of patients lost to follow-up are within the expected range, and thus we believe that they do not invalidate our results. Almost 50% of patients recovered as measured by BI, which is similar to the findings of Wade and Langton-Hewer.30 This good recovery was confirmed in ADL, social activities, and return to work. However, significant deleterious effects persisted in the QOL of patients independent in ADL but not achieving the level of function they enjoyed before the stroke. This latter effect is shown in the results of the psychosocial dimension of SIP and all subscales of the SF-36. These results agree with previous descriptions in the literature.12 13 31 This apparent divergence may be due to 2 factors. The first is the presence of a ceiling effect in the BI. The BI is insensitive to subjective dysfunction in patients with high performance in ADL. The second is the presence of anomalous perceptions and dissatisfaction in patients with minor disability levels that were incompletely restored after the stroke. Thus, the consequences of mild to moderate stroke can affect all dimensions of QOL despite the patient achieving full independence in ADL.13
Isolated measures of the physical domains of health such as the BI are not adequate to study the full impact of the long-term disability that stroke produces. QOL measurement, when added to measures of the person’s state of health, assesses the patient more completely. The additional subjective component shows the effect of survivor attitudes, health beliefs, and their interaction on activity levels. The focus of the SF-36 is on this subjective perception of health. The SIP emphasizes behavior as a valid and reliable generic instrument of QOL. Unfortunately, the SIP takes a long time to administer, thus limiting its use in the older patient population.
Another objective was to identify selected variables with major effects on QOL. Depression and disability were the strongest predictors of overall, psychosocial, and physical QOL measured with SF-36 and SIP. Poststroke disability was a stronger predictor of low QOL than poststroke depression 1 year after stroke. Patients with severe/moderate disability had lower QOL than depressed patients. Isolation and diminished social activities were the result of physical disability more than poststroke depression.
Poststroke depression is a treatable condition; early diagnosis is of paramount importance to prevent progression to a chronic depressive disorder. Depression slows down the process of rehabilitation, exerting a negative influence on all aspects of the process of recovery. All variables related to depression 1 year after stroke were of sociodemographic origin but not related to stroke subtype or stroke etiology. The depression prevalence rate in the present study, measured by Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, SF-36 vitality and mental health subscales, and psychosocial dimension of SIP, showed a high prevalence of mood disturbances, slightly higher than other studies.32 33
Older age or lower educational level was not correlated with low QOL. Increasing educational level showed only a weak relationship with better QOL. Comorbid conditions, diabetes, hypertension, or other vascular risk factors did not decrease global QOL. Social support was an important predictor of depression. Social activities measured by SF-36 were lower in women.
Women had a lower BI score both on admission and at 1-year follow-up. Similarly, women had a lower SSS score at 1 year than men and a lower QOL assessed by SIP and SF-36. Several hypotheses may explain these results. The mean age of women at stroke onset was 71 years, which is 6 years later than men. Mean Rankin Scale score at discharge was 2.3 in men and 3 in women. Thus, advanced age at stroke onset and more severe impairment at discharge could affect recovery, functional status, and QOL 1 year after stroke in women.
Failure to recover the ability to work is a major source of low QOL for the subsample of people aged <65 years.11 Women in general and housewives in particular are affected with low scores in all instruments of QOL and in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression as well. In our study 73.8% of women were housewives before stroke. Wyller et al,34 however, found better subjective well-being in women according to measurements in their cultural area. This may be a sociocultural effect specific to Spain, since in Spain elderly women are valued and routinely take responsibility for household management until they reach an advanced age. This social factor may also influence the low QOL in women surviving a stroke.
The absence of patients with dementia or aphasia is a bias in most of studies of QOL and stroke, including ours. Methodology for measuring QOL in those patients is difficult and may be better analyzed by caregivers or proxy. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group of healthy adults. However, it is possible to compare findings with the same QOL instruments in a normal population in whom scales were validated.27 28 The mean SIP score found (24.3) is coincident with results by Nydevik and Hulter-Åsberg16 9 months after stroke. These authors used a score of 10 as a cutoff because 70% of patients had a SIP mean score >10, and the mean SIP score in the aged control group was 12.5. De Haan et al,35 in a case-control study 6 months after stroke, found the following scores: psychosocial SIP, 19.5 (controls, 3.4); physical SIP, 24.6 (controls, 5); and total SIP, 23.14 (controls, 5).
An important difficulty in the analysis of QOL results in stroke patients is that few studies use the same measurement tools and there is poor agreement about which QOL measures—generic or specific—are adequate to use in stroke patients. Most of the stroke trials and reports have used generic QOL stroke scales that have the advantage of allowing comparisons among patients with different diseases, but they are less sensitive for exploring the effects of particular impairments on QOL in stroke patients. Recently, SS-QOL,36 a new stroke-specific QOL measure, has been developed and has been used to predict poststroke QOL in patients with mild and moderate stroke. Thus, we believe that it is necessary to study QOL and patient-centered outcomes in longitudinal studies in patients after stroke with normal and standardized instruments that are accepted as standard in all stroke units. Only in this way will it be possible to accurately quantify the impact and effects of stroke management on the patients.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The authors express gratitude to Dr Thomas A. Horan for helpful suggestions and review of English usage in the manuscript.
Received April 28, 2000; revision received July 12, 2000; accepted August 7, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Jaap Kapelle L, Adams HP, Heffner ML, Torner JC, Gomez F, Biller J. Prognosis of young adults with ischemic stroke: a long-term follow-up study assessing recurrent vascular events and functional outcome in the Iowa Registry of Stroke in Young Adults. Stroke. 1994;25:1360–1365.[Abstract]
2.
Min Lai S, Alter M, Friday G, Sobel E. Prognosis for
survival after an initial stroke. Stroke. 1995;26:2011–2015.
3.
Bonita R, Solomon N, Broad J. Prevalence of stroke and
stroke-related disability: estimates from the Auckland Stroke Studies.
Stroke. 1997;28:1898–1902.
4. Sacco RL. Risk factors, outcomes, and stroke subtypes for ischemic stroke. Neurology. 1997;49(suppl 4):39–44.
5.
Skilbeck CE, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R, Wood VA.
Recovery after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983;46:5–8.
6. Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke. 1994;25:2391–2397.[Abstract]
7. Pedersen PM, Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Comprehensive assessment of activities of daily living in stroke: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.. 1997;78:161–165.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Pohjasvaara T, Erkinjuntti T, Vataja R, Kaste M.
Comparison of stroke features and disability in daily life in patients
with ischemic stroke aged 55 to 70 and 71 to 85 years.
Stroke. 1997;28:729–735.
9.
Wilkinson PR, Wolfe CDA, Warburton FG, Rudd AG, Howard
RS, Ross-Russell RW, Beech RR. A long-term follow-up of stroke
patients. Stroke. 1997;28:507–512.
10.
De Haan, Aaronson N, Limburg M, Langton Hewer R, Van
Crevel H. Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke. 1992;24:320–327.
11.
King RB. Quality of life after stroke.
Stroke. 1996;27:1467–1472.
12.
Niemi ML, Laaksonen R, Kotila M, Waltimo O. Quality of
life 4 years after stroke. Stroke. 1988;19:1101–1107.
13.
Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito
A, Witter DM, Enarson C, Matchar D. Health status of individuals with
mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:740–745.
14.
Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slørdahl SA, Rokseth R, Håheim
LL. Stroke unit treatment improves long-term quality of life: a
randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1998;29:895–899.
15. Soelberg Sørensen P, Marquardsen J, Pedersen H, Heltberg A, Munck O. Long-term prognosis and quality of life after reversible cerebral ischemic attacks. Acta Neurol Scand. 1989;79:204–213.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Nydevik I, Hulter-Åsberg K. Sickness impact after stroke: a three year follow up. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1992;10:284–289.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17.
Åström M, Asplund K, Åström T.
Psychosocial function and life satisfaction after stroke.
Stroke. 1992;23:527–531.
18.
Foulkes MA, Wolf PA, Price TR, Mohr JP, Hier DB. The
Stroke Data Bank: design, methods, and baseline characteristics.
Stroke. 1988;19:547–554.
19. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet. 1991;337:1521–1526.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Boysen G. The Scandinavian Stroke Scale. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1992;2:239–247.
21. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60, II: prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2:200–215.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Mahoney PL, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use
with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12:166–170.
24. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787–805.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56–62.
27. Badía X, Alonso J. Validity and reproducibility of the Spanish version of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:359–365.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. La versión española del SF-36 Health Survey (Cuestionario de Salud SF-36): un instrumento para la medida de los resultados clínicos. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104:771–776.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Ramos-Brieva JA, Cordero-Villafilla A. A new validation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. J Psychiatr Res. 1988;22:21–28.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Wade D, Langton-Hewer R. Functional abilities after
stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987;50:177–182.
31. Viitanen M, Fugl-Meyer KS, Bernspång B, Fugl-Meyer AR. Life satisfaction in long-term survivors after stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1988;20:17–24.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32.
Wade DT, Legh-Smith J, Hewer RA. Depressed mood after
stroke: a community study of its frequency. Br J
Psychiatry. 1987;151:200–205.
33.
Ahlsiö B, Britton M, Murray V, Theorell T.
Disablement and quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 1984;15:886–890.
34.
Wyller TB, Holmen J, Laake P, Laake K. Correlates of
subjective well-being in stroke patients. Stroke. 1998;29:363–367.
35.
de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Van der Muelen JHP, Jacobs HM,
Aaronson NK. Quality of life after stroke: impact of stroke type and
lesion location. Stroke. 1995;26:402–408.
36.
Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Biller J.
Measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to stroke
patients. Neurology. 1999;53:1839–1843.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. F. Levin, J. A. Kleim, and S. L. Wolf What Do Motor "Recovery" and "Compensation" Mean in Patients Following Stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 313 - 319. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Hommel, S Trabucco-Miguel, S Joray, B Naegele, N Gonnet, and A Jaillard Social dysfunctioning after mild to moderate first-ever stroke at vocational age J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, April 1, 2009; 80(4): 371 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. S Smith and M. Thompson Treadmill training post stroke: are there any secondary benefits? A pilot study Clinical Rehabilitation, October 1, 2008; 22(10-11): 997 - 1002. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. J. Gray, N. Sprigg, P. M.W. Bath, G. Boysen, P. P. De Deyn, D. Leys, D. O'Neill, E. B. Ringelstein, and for the TAIST Investigators Sex Differences in Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors: Data From the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TAIST) Stroke, November 1, 2007; 38(11): 2960 - 2964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Townend, M. Brady, and K. McLaughlan A Systematic Evaluation of the Adaptation of Depression Diagnostic Methods for Stroke Survivors Who Have Aphasia Stroke, November 1, 2007; 38(11): 3076 - 3083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.C. Cirstea and M.F. Levin Improvement of Arm Movement Patterns and Endpoint Control Depends on Type of Feedback During Practice in Stroke Survivors Neurorehabil Neural Repair, October 1, 2007; 21(5): 398 - 411. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. D. Patel, C. McKevitt, E. Lawrence, A. G. Rudd, and C. D. A. Wolfe Clinical determinants of long-term quality of life after stroke Age Ageing, May 1, 2007; 36(3): 316 - 322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. J. Carod-Artal Are Mood Disorders a Stroke Risk Factor? Stroke, January 1, 2007; 38(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Rydwik, S. Eliasson, and G. Akner The effect of exercise of the affected foot in stroke patients-a randomized controlled pilot trial Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2006; 20(8): 645 - 655. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Naess, U. Waje-Andreassen, L. Thomassen, H. Nyland, and K.-M. Myhr Health-Related Quality of Life Among Young Adults With Ischemic Stroke on Long-Term Follow-Up Stroke, May 1, 2006; 37(5): 1232 - 1236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. F. Edwards, M. G. Hahn, C. M. Baum, M. S. Perlmutter, C. Sheedy, and A. W. Dromerick Screening Patients with Stroke for Rehabilitation Needs: Validation of the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2006; 20(1): 42 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Paul, J. W. Sturm, H. M. Dewey, G. A. Donnan, R. A.L. Macdonell, and A. G. Thrift Long-Term Outcome in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study: Predictors of Quality of Life at 5 Years After Stroke Stroke, October 1, 2005; 36(10): 2082 - 2086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Nichols-Larsen, P.C. Clark, A. Zeringue, A. Greenspan, and S. Blanton Factors Influencing Stroke Survivors' Quality of Life During Subacute Recovery Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1480 - 1484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Hackett, C. Yapa, V. Parag, and C. S. Anderson Frequency of Depression After Stroke: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Stroke, June 1, 2005; 36(6): 1330 - 1340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-C. Jonsson, I. Lindgren, B. Hallstrom, B. Norrving, and A. Lindgren Determinants of Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors and Their Informal Caregivers Stroke, April 1, 2005; 36(4): 803 - 808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Hummel, P. Celnik, P. Giraux, A. Floel, W.-H. Wu, C. Gerloff, and L. G. Cohen Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke Brain, March 1, 2005; 128(3): 490 - 499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Sturm, G. A. Donnan, H. M. Dewey, R. A. L. Macdonell, A. K. Gilligan, V. Srikanth, and A. G. Thrift Quality of Life After Stroke: The North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS) Stroke, October 1, 2004; 35(10): 2340 - 2345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y Ben-Shlomo, L Camfield, and T Warner What are the determinants of quality of life in people with cervical dystonia? J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2002; 72(5): 608 - 614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||