Publication: Effectiveness of Stroke Rehabilitation Compared between Intensive and Nonintensive Rehabilitation Protocol: A Multicenter Study
8
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15328511
10523057
10523057
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85083311915
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Pattra Wattanapan, Pranee Lukkanapichonchut, Pornpimon Massakulpan, Sumalee Suethanapornkul, Vilai Kuptniratsaikul Effectiveness of Stroke Rehabilitation Compared between Intensive and Nonintensive Rehabilitation Protocol: A Multicenter Study. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. (2020). doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104809 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/54686
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Effectiveness of Stroke Rehabilitation Compared between Intensive and Nonintensive Rehabilitation Protocol: A Multicenter Study
Abstract
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. Background and aim: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death, physical disability, and economic burden. Nowadays, various types of rehabilitation are available. Rehabilitation centers in Thailand provide services in different ways, including starting time, duration, and frequency of each therapy. In addition, many rehabilitation wards have a standing policy to reduce length of stay (LOS) due to economic considerations. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and efficiency between intensive and nonintensive rehabilitation protocol for stroke patients. Methods: This prospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted among stroke patients who admitted to rehabilitation wards at 14 centers. All participants received either intensive or non-intensive rehabilitation program. Barthel Index (BI) at admission (BIad), BI at discharge (BIdc), and LOS were recorded. The effectiveness was difference in BIdc and BIad score (ΔBI), and the efficiency was ΔBI divided by LOS (ΔBI/LOS). Results: Seven hundred and eighty stroke patients were included. Mean age was 61.9 ± 13.3 years, and 59.7% were male. The majority of patients (79.5%) were admitted for intensive rehabilitation. Effectiveness and efficiency were significantly higher in the intensive group than in the nonintensive group (4.5 ± 3.4 versus 2.6 ± 3.2 and .24 ± .30 versus .18 ± .33, respectively). LOS, intensive rehabilitation, and quality of life were significantly positively correlated with effectiveness; whereas, age, onset to admission interval (OAI), and BIad were significantly negatively correlated with the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation. Conclusions: Stroke patients admitted for intensive rehabilitation had better effectiveness and efficiency than those admitted for non-intensive rehabilitation. Younger patients with shorter OAI, lower BIad, and longer LOS realized significantly enhanced effectiveness.