| Literature DB >> 32764897 |
Jun Sheng Gary Koh1, Anne-Marie Hill1, Keith D Hill1,2, Christopher Etherton-Beer3, Jacqueline Francis-Coad1, Elizabeth Bell1, Liz Bainbridge1, Lex D de Jong1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The overall purpose of this study was to explore participants' and physiotherapists' experiences regarding the acceptability, implementation, and practicality of a novel group-based multifactorial falls prevention activity programme for community-dwelling older people after stroke. Specifically, the purpose was to explore if and how participating could impact on the participants' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of their daily lived experience regarding physical, mental, emotional and social well-being. A secondary purpose was to explore whether participating in the programme could positively influence participants' balance, strength, falls efficacy, mobility and motor impairment of the trunk.Entities:
Keywords: accidental falls; aged; evaluation studies as topic; exercise; qualitative research; quality of life; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32764897 PMCID: PMC7360420 DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S251516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Interv Aging ISSN: 1176-9092 Impact factor: 4.458
Participant and Physiotherapist Interview Topics
| Introductory Question |
|---|
| ● Can you start by telling me a little bit about your stroke and how has it affected your life since? |
| ● How do you feel about the appropriateness of the activities/exercises/intensity of this programme? |
| ● How do you feel about the suitability of this programme for (other) patients after stroke? |
| ● How do you feel about the practical side of things during this programme? |
| ● Have you ever had any safety concerns during the classes? |
| ● Do you have any ideas about possible changes to the current programme that would help other patients after stroke to complete it in the future? |
| ● Have you noticed any physical/mental/emotional/social changes since participating in the programme? |
| ● Have you noticed any changes in your independence/activities of daily living since participating in the programme? |
| ● Do you have any further suggestions? |
Characteristics of the Five Participating People After Stroke
| Characteristics | Participant 1 | Participant 2 | Participant 3 | Participant 4 | Participant 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 67 | 57 | 73 | 70 | 68 |
| Gender | Male | Female | Male | Male | Male |
| Time since stroke (years + months) | 1 + 6 | 2 + 4 | 9 + 1 | 9 + 11 | 3 + 5 |
| Type of lesion | Haemorrhagic | Unknown | Haemorrhagic | Haemorrhagic | Ischemic |
| Hemiplegic side | Left | Right | Unclear | Right | Left |
| Mini Mental State Examination score | 30 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 30 |
| Self-rated health status | Very good | Good | Good | Good | Very good |
| Functional Ambulation Classification | 4a | 6b | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Number of different types of medications taken per day | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Previously discussed falls with your health provider? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Previously undertaken healthy ageing or falls prevention activities? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Number of falls, slips or trips in the past 12 months | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Injurious falls in the past 12 months? | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Number of falls, slips or trips during study period | 5 | 0 | 0 | c | 1 |
Notes: a4 = independent ambulator. b6 = ambulator, but dependent for supervision. cData missing.
Figure 1The final conceptual framework relating to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains.
Participants’ Quantitative (Physical) Outcomes at Baseline and After Participating in the 8-Week Activity Programme
| Outcome | Baseline | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| BBS sum score, median (IQR)a | 49 (45 to 52.5) | 53 (45 to 55.5) |
| EQ-5D-5L index valueb | 0.72 (0.08) | 0.81 (0.13) |
| FES-I sum score, median (IQR)c | 10 (7.5 to 12) | 8 (7.5 to 12) |
| FTSTS, time (seconds)d | 13 (5.6) | 10.4 (3.6) |
| FSST, time (seconds)e | 28 (19.6) | 23.9 (18.4) |
| SIS domain scores, median (IQR)f | ||
| Physical domain | 83 (58.5 to 90.3) | 91.8 (56.2 to 97.4) |
| Cognitive domain | 89.3 (78.6 to 96.4) | 96.4 (89.3 to 100) |
| Emotion domain | 88.9 (82 to 95.8) | 88.9 (76.4 to 97.2) |
| Communication domain | 100 (98.2 to 100) | 100 (92.9 to 100) |
| Participation domain | 85.7 (58.9 to 96.4) | 92.9 (41.1 to 96.4) |
| Visual Analogue Scale score (cm) | 81 (8.9) | 91.6 (8.5) |
| TIS, sum score, median (IQR)g | 15 (13 to 19) | 18 (16 to 21) |
Notes: aScores range from 0 to 56 where a higher score indicates better static and dynamic balance. bThe index value ranges between 0 and 1 where a score closer to 1 indicates a better health state. cScores range from 7 to 28 where a higher score indicates more concern over falling. dA shorter time indicates better functional mobility and strength. eA shorter time indicates better balance. fThe domain scores range from 0 to 100 and are calculated using the equation ((mean item score – 1)/4)*100. Higher item scores indicate a lower level of difficulty experienced with the task. The physical domain comprises the original SIS domains of strength, hand function, ADL/IADL and mobility. The latter are aggregated into a composite because they are highly correlated. The majority of domain scores were not normally distributed. To facilitate comparisons the medians (interquartile ranges) were calculated for all domains. gScores range from 0 to 23 where a higher score indicates better static and dynamic sitting balance and coordination of trunk movement. All data are means (standard deviation) unless stated otherwise.
Abbreviations: BBS, Berg Balance Scale; EQ-5D-5L, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Health Questionnaire; FES, Falls Efficacy Scale-International; FTSTS, Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test; FFST, Four Square Step Test; SIS, Stroke Impact Scale 3.0; TIS, Trunk Impairment Scale.