Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 85, Issue 7 , Pages 1084-1090, July 2004

The effect of poststroke cognitive impairment on rehabilitation process and functional outcome1

Accepted as a poster at the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation’s annual assembly (canceled), September 2001, New Orleans, LA.

  • Sandra Zinn, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Rehabilitation Research and Development, Durham, NC, USA
    • Health Services Research and Development, Durham, NC, USA
    • Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Sandra Zinn, PhD, Research and Development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (151), 508 Fulton St, Durham, NC 27705 USA
  • ,
  • Tara K Dudley, MStat

      Affiliations

    • Health Services Research and Development, Durham, NC, USA
  • ,
  • Hayden B Bosworth, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Health Services Research and Development, Durham, NC, USA
    • Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
    • Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
  • ,
  • Helen M Hoenig, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (Hoenig, Horner), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
  • ,
  • Pamela W Duncan, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center, Malcolm Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA
  • ,
  • Ronnie D Horner, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (Hoenig, Horner), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
    • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA

Abstract 

Zinn S, Dudley TK, Bosworth HB, Hoenig HM, Duncan PW, Horner RD. The effect of poststroke cognitive impairment on rehabilitation process and functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1084–90.

Objectives

To determine whether cognitive impairment affects access to, or quality of, rehabilitation services, and to examine the effects of functional outcomes in stroke patients.

Design

Secondary analysis of prospective cohort of stroke patients followed for 6 months after stroke.

Settings

Eleven large-volume US Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals nationwide.

Participants

Stroke patients (N=272) who were candidates for rehabilitation.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main outcome measures

Rehabilitation process variables were examined for patients assessed as cognitively impaired or unimpaired according to education-adjusted Mini-Mental State Examination score. Functional outcomes were performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), measured by the FonFIM, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), measured by Lawton, at 6-month follow-up.

Results

Compliance with guidelines and receipt of and interval to postacute treatment initiation did not differ between cognitively impaired and unimpaired patients. Although most cognition-related treatment elements were similar for both groups, cognitive goals were more frequently charted in impaired patients. Controlling for baseline function and rehabilitation process, cognitively impaired patients had worse IADL performance at 6 months than did unimpaired patients; cognition did not significantly influence ADL performance.

Conclusions

Quality of, and access to, rehabilitative care was equivalent for patients with and without cognitive impairment. Despite a similar rehabilitation process, cognitively impaired stroke patients experienced worse recovery of IADLs.

Keywords:  Cognition disorders, Quality of health care, Rehabilitation, Stroke, Treatment outcome

 
  • 1 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the author(s) or on any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

 Supported in part by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service (Program 824 Funds, grant no. ACC 97-114). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

PII: S0003-9993(04)00022-X

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.10.022

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 85, Issue 7 , Pages 1084-1090, July 2004