Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001 Jan;82(1):2-8.
doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.18585.

Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors

Affiliations

Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors

S Paolucci et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the stability of mobility status achieved by stroke patients during hospital rehabilitation treatment over time and to identify reliable prognostic factors associated with mobility changes.

Design: Follow-up evaluation in consecutive first-ever stroke patients 1 year after hospital discharge. Multiple logistic regressions were used to analyze increases and decreases in Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) scores (dependent variables) between discharge and follow-up. Independent variables were medical, demographic, and social factors.

Setting: Rehabilitation hospital.

Patients: A cohort of 155 patients with sequelae of first stroke, with a final sample of 141.

Main outcome measures: Mobility status at 1-year follow-up, as measured by the RMI, and odds ratios (OR) for improvement and decline in mobility.

Results: Functionally, 19.9% improved the mobility levels achieved during the inpatient rehabilitation treatment; levels of 42.6% worsened. Patients with global aphasia (OR = 5.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-21.33), unilateral neglect (OR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.21-7.50), and age 75 years or older (OR = 5.77; 95% CI, 1.42-23.34) had a higher probability of mobility decline than the remaining patients. Postdischarge rehabilitation treatment (PDT), received by 52.5% of the final sample, was significantly and positively associated with mobility improvement (OR = 5.86; 95% CI, 2.02-17.00). Absence of PDT was associated with a decline in mobility (OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 1.73-8.04).

Conclusions: In most cases, mobility status had not yet stabilized at hospital discharge. PDT was useful in preventing a deterioration in mobility improvement achieved during inpatient treatment and in helping increase the likelihood of further mobility improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources