Differences in rehabilitation needs after stroke: A similarity analysis on the icf core set for stroke

24Citations
Citations of this article
99Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Successful rehabilitation is associated with physical, psychological, environmental, social, and personal factors based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. The influence of age has been suggested as crucial personal factors that may affect rehabilitation needs in post-stroke survivors. The aim of this study was to investigate the qualifiers of the ICF core set for stroke to detect differences in rehabilitation needs and goals between older (O,> 65 years old) and younger (Y,≤ 65 years old,) post-stroke individuals. Materials and methods: In this observational study, the comprehensive core set for stroke was filled during the rehabilitation period. Patient information was obtained using disability scales was translated into certain ICF categories using linking rules. Frequency, similarity, and linear regression analyses were performed for ICF qualifier profiles among Y and O patients. Results: Forty-eight ICF variables were significantly different between Y (n = 35, 46.17 ± 11.27 years old) and O (n = 35, 76.43 ± 6.77 years old) patients. Frequency analysis showed that activity of daily living and basic needs were more prevalent in O patients, whereas regaining of social role and social life were more prevalent in Y patients. The average Jaccard Index result (similarity analysis) was more homogeneous in O than in Y patients. Conclusions: ICF qualifiers are useful to design patient-centered care. Y patients have more heterogeneous needs and require more personalized program than O patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Perin, C., Bolis, M., Limonta, M., Meroni, R., Ostasiewicz, K., Cornaggia, C. M., … Piscitelli, D. (2020). Differences in rehabilitation needs after stroke: A similarity analysis on the icf core set for stroke. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124291

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free