4.4 Article

Strength deficits of the paretic lower extremity muscles were the impairment variables that best explained restrictions in participation after stroke

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 39, Issue 21, Pages 2158-2163

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219397

Keywords

Stroke; social participation; rehabilitation

Categories

Funding

  1. Brazilian Government Funding Agency (CAPES)
  2. Brazilian Government Funding Agency (CNPq)
  3. Brazilian Government Funding Agency (FAPEMIG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate which measures of physical impairments of both upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) would predict restrictions in participation with 105 community-dwelling stroke subjects. Methods: For this cross-sectional, exploratory study, participation was assessed by the daily activity and social role domains of the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). The potential predictors included measures of physical impairments (UE and LE motor recovery, sensation, motor coordination, and strength deficits). Results: Step-wise multiple linear regression analyses revealed that, for the daily activity domain, LE strength deficits and UE motor recovery explained 28% of the variance in the LIFE-H scores and LE strength deficits alone explained 22% (F = 29.5; p < .0001). For the social role domain, LE strength deficits and sensation explained 22% of the variance in the LIFE-H scores and LE strength deficits alone explained 16% (F = 20.6; p < .0001). Conclusions: Strength deficits of the LE muscles were the physical impairment variables that best predicted participation in both daily activity and social role domains of the LIFE-H. Although significant, UE motor recovery and LE sensation added little to the explained variance. Future research is needed to determine whether progressive resistance strength training program enhances participation after stroke.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available