Roderick Wondergem1,2,3, Martijn F Pisters1,2,3, Eveline Jm Wouters4,5, Rob A de Bie6, Cindy Veenhof1,2,7, Johanna Ma Visser-Meily2,8. 1. Center for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care, Julius Health Care Centers, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science and Sport, Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Research Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour, Department of Health Innovations and Technology, 3170Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Health Innovations and Technology, 3170Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 5. 7899Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Tranzo, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 6. 5211Maastricht University, Department of Epidemiology and Caphri research school, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. Expertise Center Healthy Urban Living, Research Group Innovation of Human Movement Care, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 8. Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Deterioration of physical functioning after stroke in the long term is regarded as a major problem. Currently, the relationship between "peoples'" movement behavior patterns (the composition of sedentary behavior and physical activity during waking hours) directly after stroke and the development of physical functioning over time is unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the course of physical functioning within the first two years after returning home after stroke, and (2) the association between physical functioning and baseline movement behavior patterns. METHOD: In the longitudinal RISE cohort study, 200 persons with a first-ever stroke discharged to the home-setting were included. Participants' physical functioning was assessed within three weeks, at six months, and one and two years after discharge using the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 subscale physical and the five-meter walk test (5MWT). Three distinct movement behavior patterns were identified in a previous study at baseline and were used in the current study: (1) sedentary exercisers (sufficiently active and 64% of waking hours sedentary), (2) sedentary movers' (inactive and 63% of waking hours sedentary), and (3) sedentary prolongers (inactive and >78% of waking hours sedentary accumulated in long prolonged bouts). The association between movement behavior patterns and the course of physical functioning was determined using longitudinal generalized estimating equations analyses. RESULTS: Overall participants' physical functioning increased between discharge and six months and declined from six months up to two years. Physical functioning remained stable during the first two years after stroke in sedentary exercisers. Physical functioning improved during the first six months after discharge in sedentary movers and sedentary prolongers and deteriorated in the following six months. Only physical functioning (SIS) of sedentary prolongers further declined from one up to two years. A similar pattern was observed in the 5MWT. CONCLUSION: Movement behavior patterns identified directly after returning home in people with stroke are associated with and are predictive of the course of physical functioning. Highly sedentary and inactive people with stroke have unfavorable outcomes over time than individuals with higher amounts of physical activity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Deterioration of physical functioning after stroke in the long term is regarded as a major problem. Currently, the relationship between "peoples'" movement behavior patterns (the composition of sedentary behavior and physical activity during waking hours) directly after stroke and the development of physical functioning over time is unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the course of physical functioning within the first two years after returning home after stroke, and (2) the association between physical functioning and baseline movement behavior patterns. METHOD: In the longitudinal RISE cohort study, 200 persons with a first-ever stroke discharged to the home-setting were included. Participants' physical functioning was assessed within three weeks, at six months, and one and two years after discharge using the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 subscale physical and the five-meter walk test (5MWT). Three distinct movement behavior patterns were identified in a previous study at baseline and were used in the current study: (1) sedentary exercisers (sufficiently active and 64% of waking hours sedentary), (2) sedentary movers' (inactive and 63% of waking hours sedentary), and (3) sedentary prolongers (inactive and >78% of waking hours sedentary accumulated in long prolonged bouts). The association between movement behavior patterns and the course of physical functioning was determined using longitudinal generalized estimating equations analyses. RESULTS: Overall participants' physical functioning increased between discharge and six months and declined from six months up to two years. Physical functioning remained stable during the first two years after stroke in sedentary exercisers. Physical functioning improved during the first six months after discharge in sedentary movers and sedentary prolongers and deteriorated in the following six months. Only physical functioning (SIS) of sedentary prolongers further declined from one up to two years. A similar pattern was observed in the 5MWT. CONCLUSION: Movement behavior patterns identified directly after returning home in people with stroke are associated with and are predictive of the course of physical functioning. Highly sedentary and inactive people with stroke have unfavorable outcomes over time than individuals with higher amounts of physical activity.
Authors: Christopher McKevitt; Nina Fudge; Judith Redfern; Anita Sheldenkar; Siobhan Crichton; Anthony R Rudd; Ann Forster; John Young; Irwin Nazareth; Louise E Silver; Peter M Rothwell; Charles D A Wolfe Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David H Saunders; Mark Sanderson; Sara Hayes; Maeve Kilrane; Carolyn A Greig; Miriam Brazzelli; Gillian E Mead Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-03-24
Authors: Pamela A Semanik; Jungwha Lee; Jing Song; Rowland W Chang; Min-Woong Sohn; Linda S Ehrlich-Jones; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael M Nevitt; C Kent Kwoh; Dorothy D Dunlop Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: I Vaartjes; J B Reitsma; A de Bruin; M Berger-van Sijl; M J Bos; M M B Breteler; D E Grobbee; M L Bots Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Wendy C King; Jia-Yuh Chen; Dale S Bond; Steven H Belle; Anita P Courcoulas; Emma J Patterson; James E Mitchell; William B Inabnet; George F Dakin; David R Flum; Brian Cook; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Sarah A Moore; Nina Hrisos; Darren Flynn; Linda Errington; Christopher Price; Leah Avery Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 6.457