BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Outcome after first stroke varies significantly across Europe. This study was designed to compare motor and functional recovery after stroke between four European rehabilitation centers. METHODS: Consecutive stroke patients (532 patients) were recruited. They were assessed on admission and at 2, 4, and 6 months after stroke with the Barthel Index, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm, and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (except on admission). Data were analyzed using random effects ordinal logistic models adjusting for case-mix and multiple testing. RESULTS: Patients in the UK center were more likely to stay in lower Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function classes compared with patients in the German center (DeltaOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3). In the Swiss center, patients were less likely to stay in lower Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living classes compared with patients in the UK center (DeltaOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9). The latter were less likely to stay in lower Barthel Index classes compared with the patients in the German center (DeltaOR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.4 to 0.8). Recovery patterns of Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk and Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm were not significantly different between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Gross motor and functional recovery were better in the German and Swiss centers compared with the UK center, respectively. Personal self-care recovery was better in the UK compared with the German center. Previous studies in the same centers indicated that German and Swiss patients received more therapy per day. This was not the result of more staff but of a more efficient use of human resources. This study indicates potential for improving rehabilitation outcomes in the UK and Belgian centers.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Outcome after first stroke varies significantly across Europe. This study was designed to compare motor and functional recovery after stroke between four European rehabilitation centers. METHODS: Consecutive strokepatients (532 patients) were recruited. They were assessed on admission and at 2, 4, and 6 months after stroke with the Barthel Index, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm, and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (except on admission). Data were analyzed using random effects ordinal logistic models adjusting for case-mix and multiple testing. RESULTS:Patients in the UK center were more likely to stay in lower Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function classes compared with patients in the German center (DeltaOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3). In the Swiss center, patients were less likely to stay in lower Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living classes compared with patients in the UK center (DeltaOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9). The latter were less likely to stay in lower Barthel Index classes compared with the patients in the German center (DeltaOR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.4 to 0.8). Recovery patterns of Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk and Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm were not significantly different between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Gross motor and functional recovery were better in the German and Swiss centers compared with the UK center, respectively. Personal self-care recovery was better in the UK compared with the German center. Previous studies in the same centers indicated that German and Swiss patients received more therapy per day. This was not the result of more staff but of a more efficient use of human resources. This study indicates potential for improving rehabilitation outcomes in the UK and Belgian centers.
Authors: Carol L Richards; Anne Durand; Francine Malouin; Sylvie Nadeau; Joyce Fung; Line D'Amours; Claire Perez Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2020 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Corina Schuster-Amft; Jan Kool; J Carsten Möller; Raoul Schweinfurther; Markus J Ernst; Leah Reicherzer; Carina Ziller; Martin E Schwab; Simon Wieser; Markus Wirz Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Carol L Richards; Francine Malouin; Sylvie Nadeau; Joyce Fung; Line D'Amours; Claire Perez; Anne Durand Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2018 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Sarah A Moore; Kate Hallsworth; Thomas Plötz; Gary A Ford; Lynn Rochester; Michael I Trenell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David J Clarke; Sarah Tyson; Helen Rodgers; Avril Drummond; Rebecca Palmer; Matthew Prescott; Pippa Tyrrell; Louisa Burton; Katie Grenfell; Lianne Brkic; Anne Forster Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.692