Daily Life Upper Limb Activity for Patients with Match and Mismatch Between Observed Function and Perceived Activity in the Chronic Phase Post Stroke

Overview

Journal Sensors (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2021 Sep 10

PMID 34502808

Citations 7

Authors

Bea Essers

Marjan Coremans

Janne Veerbeek

Andreas Luft

Geert Verheyden

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We investigated actual daily life upper limb (UL) activity in relation to observed UL motor function and perceived UL activity in chronic stroke in order to better understand and improve UL activity in daily life. In 60 patients, we collected (1) observed UL motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE)), (2) perceived UL activity (hand subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-Hand)), and (3) daily life UL activity (bilateral wrist-worn accelerometers for 72 h) data. Data were compared between two groups of interest, namely (1) good observed (FMA-UE >50) function and good perceived (SIS-Hand >75) activity (good match, = 16) and (2) good observed function but low perceived (SIS-Hand ≤75) activity (mismatch, = 15) with Mann-Whitney analysis. The mismatch group only differed from the good match group in perceived UL activity (median (Q1-Q3) = 50 (30-70) versus 93 (85-100); < 0.001). Despite similar observed UL motor function and other clinical characteristics, the affected UL in the mismatch group was less active in daily life compared to the good match group ( = 0.013), and the contribution of the affected UL compared to the unaffected UL for each second of activity (magnitude ratio) was lower ( = 0.022). We conclude that people with chronic stroke with low perceived UL activity indeed tend to use their affected UL less in daily life despite good observed UL motor function.

Citing Articles

Construct validity and responsiveness of clinical upper limb measures and sensor-based arm use within the first year after stroke: a longitudinal cohort study.

Pohl J, Verheyden G, Held J, Luft A, Easthope Awai C, Veerbeek J J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025; 22(1):14.

PMID: 39881332 PMC: 11776245. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-024-01512-9.

Chronic stroke survivors underestimate their upper limb motor ability in a simple 2D motor task.

Sporn S, Coll M, Bestmann S, Ward N J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024; 21(1):175.

PMID: 39354594 PMC: 11443716. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-024-01471-1.

Wearable Technology to Capture Arm Use of People With Stroke in Home and Community Settings: Feasibility and Early Insights on Motor Performance.

Demers M, Bishop L, Cain A, Saba J, Rowe J, Zondervan D Phys Ther. 2024; 104(2).

PMID: 38166199 PMC: 10851839. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzad172.

Predicting Arm Nonuse in Individuals with Good Arm Motor Function after Stroke Rehabilitation: A Machine Learning Study.

Chen Y, Li Y, Huang C, Lin C, Tien C, Chen W Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(5).

PMID: 36901133 PMC: 10001502. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054123.

Time to reconcile research findings and clinical practice on upper limb neurorehabilitation.

Boccuni L, Marinelli L, Trompetto C, Pascual-Leone A, Tormos Munoz J Front Neurol. 2022; 13:939748.

PMID: 35928130 PMC: 9343948. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.939748.

References

Rand D, Eng J . Predicting daily use of the affected upper extremity 1 year after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014; 24(2):274-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.07.039. View

Bandura A . Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84(2):191-215. DOI: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. View

von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007; 370(9596):1453-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. View

Richardson M, Campbell N, Allen L, Meyer M, Teasell R . The stroke impact scale: performance as a quality of life measure in a community-based stroke rehabilitation setting. Disabil Rehabil. 2015; 38(14):1425-30. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1102337. View

Duncan Millar J, van Wijck F, Pollock A, Ali M . Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?. Clin Rehabil. 2019; 33(4):737-749. PMC: 6429625. DOI: 10.1177/0269215518823248. View

Chin L, Hayward K, Soh A, Tan C, Wong C, Loh J . An accelerometry and observational study to quantify upper limb use after stroke during inpatient rehabilitation. Physiother Res Int. 2019; 24(4):e1784. DOI: 10.1002/pri.1784. View

Waddell K, Strube M, Bailey R, Klaesner J, Birkenmeier R, Dromerick A . Does Task-Specific Training Improve Upper Limb Performance in Daily Life Poststroke?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016; 31(3):290-300. PMC: 5481638. DOI: 10.1177/1545968316680493. View

Thrane G, Emaus N, Askim T, Anke A . Arm use in patients with subacute stroke monitored by accelerometry: association with motor impairment and influence on self-dependence. J Rehabil Med. 2011; 43(4):299-304. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0676. View

Stewart J, Cramer S . Patient-reported measures provide unique insights into motor function after stroke. Stroke. 2013; 44(4):1111-6. PMC: 3609884. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.674671. View

10.

Uswatte G, Miltner W, Foo B, Varma M, Moran S, Taub E . Objective measurement of functional upper-extremity movement using accelerometer recordings transformed with a threshold filter. Stroke. 2000; 31(3):662-7. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.31.3.662. View

11.

Fugl-Meyer A, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S . The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975; 7(1):13-31. View

12.

van Vliet P, Wulf G . Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence?. Disabil Rehabil. 2006; 28(13-14):831-40. DOI: 10.1080/09638280500534937. View

13.

Rand D, Eng J . Disparity between functional recovery and daily use of the upper and lower extremities during subacute stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011; 26(1):76-84. PMC: 3233607. DOI: 10.1177/1545968311408918. View

14.

Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark V, Morris D, Barman J, Bowman M . Method for enhancing real-world use of a more affected arm in chronic stroke: transfer package of constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2013; 44(5):1383-8. PMC: 3703737. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000559. View

15.

Bailey R, Birkenmeier R, Lang C . Real-world affected upper limb activity in chronic stroke: an examination of potential modifying factors. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015; 22(1):26-33. PMC: 4477948. DOI: 10.1179/1074935714Z.0000000040. View

16.

Kwakkel G, Veerbeek J, van Wegen E, Wolf S . Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2015; 14(2):224-34. PMC: 4361809. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70160-7. View

17.

Whitford M, Schearer E, Rowlett M . Effects of in home high dose accelerometer-based feedback on perceived and actual use in participants chronic post-stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018; 36(7):799-809. DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1493759. View

18.

Duncan P, Bode R, Lai S, Perera S . Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84(7):950-63. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00035-2. View

19.

Hoonhorst M, Nijland R, van den Berg J, Emmelot C, Kollen B, Kwakkel G . How Do Fugl-Meyer Arm Motor Scores Relate to Dexterity According to the Action Research Arm Test at 6 Months Poststroke?. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96(10):1845-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.06.009. View

20.

Shim S, Kim H, Jung J . Comparison of upper extremity motor recovery of stroke patients with actual physical activity in their daily lives measured with accelerometers. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014; 26(7):1009-11. PMC: 4135185. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.26.1009. View