Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:58:25.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Rehabilitation Technologies in Stroke: Outcomes and Costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ursula Hass ,
Jan Persson ,
Håkan Brodin ,
Ingrid Fredén-Karlsson ,
Jan-Edvin Olsson  and
Inger Berg
Ursula Hass
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Jan Persson
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Håkan Brodin
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Ingrid Fredén-Karlsson
Affiliation:
The Primary Health Care Center of Skäggertorp, Linköping
Jan-Edvin Olsson
Affiliation:
University Hospital, Linköping
Inger Berg
Affiliation:
University Hospital, Linköping
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

Initial functional ability (Barthel Index, mean 57) was found to be an important predictor of functional ability 1 year after stroke (mean 80) and for costs during the period. On average the total cost for a stroke patient was about SEK 200,000; the main expense, accommodation, averaged about SEK 140,000, while assistive devices amounted to SEK 2,600. Those who use assistive devices, although having achieved a high functional ability, perceive and rate their life situation (Nottingham Health Profile) considerably more impaired than those without assistive devices.

Type
Special Section: Technology and Disability
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 245 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Ahlsiö, B., Britton, M., Murray, V., & Theorell, T.Disablement and quality of life after stroke. Stroke, 1984, 15, 886–90.Google Scholar
2.Åström, M., Asplund, K., & Aström, T.Psychosocial function and life satisfaction after stroke. Stroke, 1992, 23, 527–31.Google Scholar
3.DeJong, G., & Branch, L. G.Predicting the stroke patient's ability to live independently. Stroke, 1982, 13, 648–55.Google Scholar
4.Ebrahim, S. Measurement of impairment, disability and handicap. In Hopkins, A. & Costain, D. (eds.), Measuring the outcomes of medical care. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1990, 27–41.Google Scholar
5.Ebrahim, S., Barer, D., & Nouri, F.Use of the Nottingham Health Profile with patients after stroke. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1986, 40, 166–69.Google Scholar
6.Freed, M., & Wainapel, S. F.Predictors of stroke outcome. American Family Physician, 1983, 28, 119–23.Google Scholar
7.Garraway, W. M., Akhtar, A. J., Prescott, R. J., & Hockey, L.Evaluating the effectiveness of a stroke unit in the management of acute stroke. Experta Medica International Congress series, 1982, 568, 156–72.Google Scholar
8.Gresham, G., Phillips, T. F., & Labi, M. L. C.ADL status in stroke: Relative merits of three standard indexes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1980, 61, 355–58.Google Scholar
9.Hamrin, E.Early activation after stroke: Does it make a difference? Scandanavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1982, 14, 111–16.Google Scholar
10.Hulter-Asberg, K., & Parrow, A.Event, incidence and fatality rates of cerebrovascular disease in Enköping - Hâbo, Sweden, 1986–88. Scandanavian Journal of Social Medicine, 1991, 19, 134–39.Google Scholar
11.Hunt, S. M., McEven, J., & McKenna, S. P.Perceived health: Age and sex norms in a community. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1984, 38, 156–60.Google Scholar
12.Huat, S. M., McKenna, S. P., McEven, J., et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: A validation study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1980, 32, 281–86.Google Scholar
13.Indtedavik, B., Bakke, F., Solberg, R., et al. Benefit of a stroke unit: A randomized controlled trial. Stroke, 1991, 22, 1026–31.Google Scholar
14.Katt, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., & Jackson, B. A.Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1963, 185, 914–19.Google Scholar
15.Lawrence, L., & Christie, D.Quality of life after stroke: A three-year follow-up. Age and Aging, 1979, 8, 167–72.Google Scholar
16.Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W.Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 1965, 24, 61–65.Google Scholar
17.Miettinen, O. S.Theoretical epidemiology: Principles of occurrence research in medicine. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.Google Scholar
18.Novak, T. A., Satterfield, W. T., Lyons, K., et al. Stroke onset and rehabilitation: Time lag as a factor in treatment outcome. Archives of Physical and Medical Rehabilitation, 1984, 65, 316–19.Google Scholar
19.Osberg, J. S., McGinnis, G. E., DeJong, G., et al. Long-term utilization and charges among post-rehabilitation stroke patients. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitates, 1988, 67, 66–72.Google Scholar
20.Persson, J., & Brodin, J.Legal and macroeconomic factors impacting rehabilitation technology availability, D.2 chapter 1: Existing socio-economic models. EC TIDE study of horizontal European activities in rehabilitation technology. Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General DG XII, 1993.Google Scholar
21.Persson, U., Silverberg, R., Lindgren, B., et al. Direct costs of stroke for a Swedish population. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 125–37.Google Scholar
22.Robinson, R. G., & Price, T. R.Post-stroke depressive disorders: A follow-up study of 103 patients. Stroke, 1982, 13, 635–41.Google Scholar
23.Schoening, H. A., Anderegg, L., Bergström, D., et al. Numerical scoring of self-care status, of patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1965, 46, 689–97.Google Scholar
24.Schoening, H. A., & Iversen, I. A.Numerical scoring of self-care status: A study of the Kenny self-care evaluation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1968, 49, 221–29.Google Scholar
25.Shah, S., Vanclay, F., & Cooper, B.Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 1990, 21, 241–46.Google Scholar
26. Statistics. Sweden. Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 1992. Stockholm: Nordstedts Tryckeri AB, 1991.Google Scholar
27.Strand, T., Asplund, K., Eriksson, S., et al. A non-intensive stroke unit reduces functional disability and the need for long-term hospitalization. Stroke, 1985, 16, 29–34.Google Scholar
28.Teréent, A.Increasing incidence of stroke among Swedish women. Stroke, 1988, 19, 598–683.Google Scholar
29.Terént, A.Medico-social consequences and direct costs of stroke in a Swedish community. Scandmavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1983, 15, 165–71.Google Scholar
30.Viitanen, M., Eriksson, S., Asplund, K. et al. Determinants of long-term mortality after stroke. Acta Medical Scandinavian, 1987, 221, 349–56.Google Scholar
31.Wade, D. T., & Langton Hewer, R.Functional abilities after stroke: Measurement, natural history, and prognosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 1987, 50, 177–82.Google Scholar
32.Wade, D. T., Legh-Smith, J., & Langton Hewer, R.Depressed mood after stroke: A community study of its frequency, prognosis, and associated factors. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1987, 151, 200–05.Google Scholar
33.Wade, D. T., Skilbeck, C. E., & Langton Hewer, R.Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Archives of Physical and Medicine Rehabilitation, 1983, 64, 24–28.Google Scholar
34.World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.Google Scholar