Publication:
Effectiveness of Stroke Rehabilitation Compared between Intensive and Nonintensive Rehabilitation Protocol: A Multicenter Study

dc.contributor.authorPattra Wattanapanen_US
dc.contributor.authorPranee Lukkanapichonchuten_US
dc.contributor.authorPornpimon Massakulpanen_US
dc.contributor.authorSumalee Suethanapornkulen_US
dc.contributor.authorVilai Kuptniratsaikulen_US
dc.contributor.otherKhon Kaen Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherThailand Ministry of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherPhramongkutklao College of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherRatchaburi Regional Hospitalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-05T05:57:59Z
dc.date.available2020-05-05T05:57:59Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104809en_US
dc.identifier.issn15328511en_US
dc.identifier.issn10523057en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85083311915en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/54686
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083311915&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleEffectiveness of Stroke Rehabilitation Compared between Intensive and Nonintensive Rehabilitation Protocol: A Multicenter Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083311915&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections