162
M. Gustavsson et al.
Table II. Participants’ characteristics
Age, mean (SD)
Women/men, n (%)
Cohabitation, n (%)
FAI pre-stroke (0–45), median
Stroke severity, Barthel Index, n (%)
Mild (50–100)
Moderate/severe (< 49)
Katz Extended Index of Independence in ADL
pre-stroke, n (%)
Dependent in both
Independent in one
Independent in both
Intervention group (n = 114) Control group (n = 123) Inpatient rehabilitation
(n = 78) Home rehabilitation
(n = 36) Inpatient rehabilitation
(n = 51) Home rehabilitation
(n = 72)
72.6 (11.1)
38/40 (49/51)
40 (51)
29 74.6 (7.6)
13/23 (34/64)
21 (58)
31 69.3 (11.9)
17/34 (33/66)
32 (63)
32 70.2 (9.2)
27/45 (38/63)
41 (57)
35
53 (68) 32 (89) 41 (80) 66 (92)
25 (32) 4 (11) 10 (20) 6 (8)
2 (4) 1 (1)
19 (24) 12 (33) 11 (22) 20 (28)
52 (67) 19 (53) 38 (75) 51 (71)
5 (14)
7 (9)
SD: standard deviation; FAI: Frenchay Activities Index; ADL: activities of daily living.
The hypothesis was that client characteristics (age, sex, stroke
severity and participation before stroke), rehabilitation context
(inpatient or client’s home), and approach (enhanced client-
centeredness or not) would differ between participants reporting
a positive outcome and those reporting no positive outcome in
participation in everyday life after stroke. Data from the inter-
vention group and the control group were analysed separately.
As a first step, univariable logistic regression analyses were
performed to explore plausible associations in relation to the
independent variables and a positive outcome regarding parti-
cipation 12 months after inclusion. The independent variables
were: age, sex, stroke severity according to the Barthel Index,
rehabilitation context (inpatient medical-, inpatient geriatric-,
or primary care home rehabilitation units) and participation in
everyday life before stroke according to the FAI. Participants
with moderate and severe stroke according to the Barthel Index
were pooled and analysed as a single group due to a low number
of participants with severe stroke.
In addition, multivariable logistic regression analyses were
performed, in which both the intervention and the control group
were included. Since the results from the univariate analyses
indicated a greater difference in outcome between home and
the medical rehabilitation (reference in the univariate analyses)
than between geriatric and medical rehabilitation and due to few
participants from the medical rehabilitation unit, participants
treated at medical and geriatric rehabilitation units were pooled
to a single inpatient rehabilitation group.
These analyses explored the relationship between context
(inpatient or home rehabilitation) and approach (enhanced
client-centred intervention or usual ADL intervention) of rehabi-
litation and having a positive outcome in any of the 3 outcome
measures. The p-value was 0.05.
RESULTS
Included in this study were 237 participants from the
previous RCT; 123 from the intervention group and
114 from the control group. Of the 237 participants, 7
were missing data for SIS; 7 were missing data for FAI;
and 1 was missing data for OGQ. The characteristics of
the participants are presented in Table II. Data on the 3
outcome measures of participation at inclusion (0 or 3
months) and 12 months after inclusion are presented in
Table III. Positive outcomes in participation in every-
day life were found for: 208 (90%) participants using
SIS, 154 (67%) using FAI, and 162 (69%) using OGQ.
The univariable analyses for the 3 outcome measures
(SIS, FAI and OGQ) are presented in Tables IVa–IVc.
Among participants in the control group, there was a
significant association between mild stroke and a po-
sitive outcome using SIS domain 8 (OR 1.00 vs 0.25
for moderate/severe stroke) (see Table IVa). There
was a significant association between mild stroke and
a positive outcome using FAI for both the intervention
group (OR 1.00 vs 0.36 for moderate/severe stroke) and
the control group (OR 1.00 vs 0.12 for moderate/severe
stroke) (see Table IVb). In addition, among participants
in the control group there was a significant association
between type of rehabilitation and a positive outcome
using FAI (OR 3.20 for home rehabilitation vs 1.00 for
Table III. Outcome measures at baseline and 12 months after inclusion
Intervention group (n = 114)
SIS domain 8 participation, median
FAI pre-stroke, median
OGQ, mean
Control group (n = 123)
Inpatient (n = 78) Home-based (n = 36) Inpatient (n = 51) 0/3 months 12 months 0/3 months 12 months 0/3 months 12 months 0/3 months 12 months
25.9
30.5
8.3 66.4
19.5
6.4 25.9
31
7.2 68.1
20
4.9 24.1
32.5
9.2 58.3
21.5
5.2 75.0
25
3.8
SIS: Stroke Impact Scale 3.0; FAI: Frenchay Activities Index; OGQ: Occupational Gaps Questionnaire.
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm
Home-based (n = 72)
30.9
33
5.6