Predictors of Stroke Recovery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background and Aims: A stroke is a sudden disruption of brain functions. Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, with millions of people experiencing physical and/or mental disabilities. Rehabilitation promotes patients' functional recovery; however, investigations of the factors that may facilitate or impede rehabilitation are needed. The aim of this study was to explore how the type of stroke and the associated impairments impact patients' perceptions of improvement following their discharge from physical therapy. Methods: A cross-sectional sample was recruited in Saudi Arabia between 2021 and 2022. The participants comprised 41 adults who had had a stroke and completed a rehabilitation program. They provided demographic data, completed a questionnaire regarding their stroke type and related impairments, and rated their perceived stroke improvements using the global rating of change. The sample size was computed using G*Power, which indicated that 40 participants were needed. Results: Higher perceived improvements were reported by the patients with ischemic stroke (n ≤ 35) than those with hemorrhagic stroke (n ≤ 6; odds, 8.420) and the patients with weakness (n ≤ 35) than those with no weakness (n ≤ 6; odds, 30.629) after completing their rehabilitation program (p < .05). The main findings were that having an ischemic stroke (vs. a hemorrhagic stroke) and reporting weakness (vs. no weakness) significantly increased the likelihood of the patients reporting greater improvements after completing the physical therapy rehabilitation program. Conclusions: Rehabilitation benefited ischemic stroke survivors more than hemorrhagic stroke survivors. Stroke survivors with weakness benefited the most from rehabilitation when compared to those with no weakness.

References

1. 1.Feigin VL, Stark BA, Johnson CO, Roth GA, Bisignano C, Abady GG, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Mar 23];20(10):l-26. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov- /34487721/
2. 2.Johnson CO, Nguyen M, Roth GA, Nichols E, Alam T, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol [Internet]. 2019 May 1 [cited 2023 Jan 28];18(5):439-58. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov- /30871944/
3. 3.Bindawas SM, Vennu VS. Stroke rehabil­ itation. A call to action in Saudi Arabia. Neurosciences (Riyadh) [Internet], 2016 [cited 2023 Jan 28];21(4):297-305. Avail­ able from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27744457/ Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol [Internet]. 2008 Mar [cited 2022 Oct 6];63(3):272-87. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27744457/
4. 4.Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol [Internet]. 2008 Mar [cited 2022 Oct 6];63(3):272-87. Available from: https://pubmed. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov- /18383072/
5. 5.Memis D, Kozanoglu E, Kelle B, Goncu MK. Assessment of demographic and clini­ cal characteristics on functional status and disability of patients with stroke. Neurosci­ ences Journal [Internet], 2016 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];21(4):352-7. Available from: https://nsj.org.sa/content/21/4/352
6. 6.Meyer MJ, Pereira S, McClure A, Teasell R, Thind A, Koval J, et al. A systematic review of studies reporting multivariable models to predict functional outcomes after post-stroke inpatient rehabilitation. https://- doi.org/103109/096382882014963706 [In­ ternet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jan 28];37(15):1316-23. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/- doi/abs/10.3109/09638288.2014.963706 Kwah LK, Diong J. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). J Physiother [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Oct 4];60(l):61. Available from: https://- pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24856948/ doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.963706
7. 7.Benaim C, Perennou DA, Villy J, Rousseaux M, Pelissier JY. Validation of a stan­ dardized assessment of postural control in stroke patients: the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS). Stroke [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2022 Oct 4];30(9):1862-8. Available from: Predictors of Stroke Recovery: A cross-sectional study Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences, Volume 12 Issue 4 October 2024, Rabi Al-Awwal 1446 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov- /10471437/
8. 8.Daley K, Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Reliability of Scores on the Stroke Rehabili­ tation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) Measure. Phys Ther [Internet]. 1999 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Oct 4];79(l):8-23. Available from: https ://academic.oup. com/p tj/article/79/1/8/2857712 Duncan PW, Bode RK, Lai SM, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific out­ come scale: The stroke impact scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2003 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Oct 4];84(7):950-63. Available from: http://www.archives-pmr.org/ article/S0003999303000352/fulltext
9. 9.Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Mea­ surement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec l;10(4):407-15.
10. 10.Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther [Internet], 2009;17(3):163-70. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20046623
11. 11.A Comparison of a Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, [cited 2024 May 16]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/81/2/776/2829542
12. 12.Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition rat­ ings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep l;55(9):900-8. Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Pozzi GC, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome mea­ sures for low back pain patients in Brazil: Which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2008 Oct 15 [cited 2024 May 16];33(22):2459-63. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/fullt ex t/ 2 0 0 8 / 1 0 1 5 0 /cli - nimetric_testing_of_three_self_report_outc ome.17.aspx
13. 13.Ogino T, Kanata Y, Uegaki R, Yamagu­ chi T, Morisaki K, Nakano S, et al. Effects of gait exercise assist robot (GEAR) on sub­ jects with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2020 Aug 1;29(8).
14. 14.Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Chacon-Moscoso S. Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods [Internet], 2003 Dec [cited 2024 May 19] ;8(4):448-67. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov- /14664682/
15. 15.Ojaghihaghighi S, Vahdati SS, Mikaeilpour A, Ramouz A. Comparison of neuro­ logical clinical manifestation in patients with hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. World J Emerg Med [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Oct 2];8(1):34. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5263033/ Iranmanesh F. Post-stroke depression and hospital admission. Post-stroke depression and hospital admission. Neurosciences Jour­ nal. 2010;15(l).
16. 16.Shin S, Lee Y, Chang WH, Sohn MK, Lee J, Kim DY, et al. Multifaceted Assess­ ment of Functional Outcomes in Survivors Predictors of Stroke Recovery: A cross-sectional study Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences, Volume 12 Issue 4 October 2024, Rabi Al-Awwal 1446 of First-time Stroke. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2022 Sep 23 [cited 2022 Oct 2];5(9):e2233094. Available from: https://- pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149652/
17. 17.Alotaibi SM, Alotaibi HM, Alolyani AM, Abu Dali FA, Alshammari AK, Alhwiesh AA, et al. Assessment of the stroke-specific quality-of-life scale in KFHU, Khobar. Neurosciences Journal [In­ ternet], 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];26(2):171-8. Available from: https://nsj. org. s a/content/2 6/2/171 Predictors of Stroke Recovery: A cross-sectional study