Ada Tang1, Janice J Eng, Debbie Rand. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Rehabilitation Research Lab, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Examining participant-perceived change in walking provides insight into whether changes were meaningful for participants. This study examined the relationships between change scores in standardized walking outcomes and ratings of perceived change following exercise poststroke. METHODS: Self- and fast-paced gait speed and Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance were assessed in 22 participants (age 67 ± 10.3 years, 1.8 ± 0.9 years poststroke) before and after a 3-month exercise program. Perceived changes were evaluated using a 15-point Likert scale. Correlation analyses between measured and perceived changes were performed. Subgroups of low and high baseline scores were compared for differences in measured and perceived changes. RESULTS: Six-Minute Walk Test change was correlated with perceived change (ρ = 0.52, P = 0.01), greater 6MWT change was demonstrated among participants who perceived improvement compared to those who did not (difference 34.4 m, 95% CI: 17.2-51.6, P = 0.04). After controlling for measured change, participants with low baseline 6MWT distances perceived less change than those who walked high distances at baseline (P = 0.006) even when relative change was equivalent. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A global rating scale using meaningful and context-specific questions was used to determine the relationship between measured and participant-perceived changes in 6MWT distance. A meaningful difference in 6MWT change was observed between participants who did and those who did not perceive improvement. Individuals with lower baseline scores may require larger changes in walking distance to perceive that a change has occurred. This study contributes to a growing body of evidence about the relationships between perceived and measured changes in function and is a step in determining thresholds for perceived change in walking after stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Examining participant-perceived change in walking provides insight into whether changes were meaningful for participants. This study examined the relationships between change scores in standardized walking outcomes and ratings of perceived change following exercise poststroke. METHODS: Self- and fast-paced gait speed and Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance were assessed in 22 participants (age 67 ± 10.3 years, 1.8 ± 0.9 years poststroke) before and after a 3-month exercise program. Perceived changes were evaluated using a 15-point Likert scale. Correlation analyses between measured and perceived changes were performed. Subgroups of low and high baseline scores were compared for differences in measured and perceived changes. RESULTS: Six-Minute Walk Test change was correlated with perceived change (ρ = 0.52, P = 0.01), greater 6MWT change was demonstrated among participants who perceived improvement compared to those who did not (difference 34.4 m, 95% CI: 17.2-51.6, P = 0.04). After controlling for measured change, participants with low baseline 6MWT distances perceived less change than those who walked high distances at baseline (P = 0.006) even when relative change was equivalent. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A global rating scale using meaningful and context-specific questions was used to determine the relationship between measured and participant-perceived changes in 6MWT distance. A meaningful difference in 6MWT change was observed between participants who did and those who did not perceive improvement. Individuals with lower baseline scores may require larger changes in walking distance to perceive that a change has occurred. This study contributes to a growing body of evidence about the relationships between perceived and measured changes in function and is a step in determining thresholds for perceived change in walking after stroke.
Authors: George D Fulk; Miriam Ludwig; Kari Dunning; Sue Golden; Pierce Boyne; Trent West Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Pamela W Duncan; Katherine J Sullivan; Andrea L Behrman; Stanley P Azen; Samuel S Wu; Stephen E Nadeau; Bruce H Dobkin; Dorian K Rose; Julie K Tilson; Steven Cen; Sarah K Hayden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julie K Tilson; Katherine J Sullivan; Steven Y Cen; Dorian K Rose; Cherisha H Koradia; Stanley P Azen; Pamela W Duncan Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-12-18
Authors: Arlene Schmid; Pamela W Duncan; Stephanie Studenski; Sue Min Lai; Lorie Richards; Subashan Perera; Samuel S Wu Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mary Stuart; Alexander W Dromerick; Richard Macko; Francesco Benvenuti; Brock Beamer; John Sorkin; Sarah Chard; Michael Weinrich Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Catherine J VanDerwerker; Ryan E Ross; Katy H Stimpson; Aaron E Embry; Stacey E Aaron; Brian Cence; Mark S George; Chris M Gregory Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Susanne Palmcrantz; Anneli Wall; Katarina Skough Vreede; Påvel Lindberg; Anna Danielsson; Katharina S Sunnerhagen; Charlotte K Häger; Jörgen Borg Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Elizabeth Regan; Addie Middleton; Jill C Stewart; Sara Wilcox; Joseph Lee Pearson; Stacy Fritz Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Susan M Linder; Sara Davidson; Anson Rosenfeldt; John Lee; Mandy Miller Koop; Francois Bethoux; Jay L Alberts Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.966