U-Rate-UE; Measuring perceived recovery of the affected upper extremity in adults post-stroke

Debbie Rand,Samar Assadi Khalil,Inbar Schaham,Noa Doron,Shelly Peri,Gabriel Zeilig,Israel Dudkiewicz,Revital Feige Gross-Nevo,Haim Barel,Samar Hmaied Khalil
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2024.02.715
IF: 4.06
2024-02-01
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To establish initial validity of "U-Rate-UE", a single-question scale regarding perceived recovery of the stroke affected upper extremity (UE).DESIGN: A retrospective longitudinal study of data collected at rehabilitation admission, 6 weeks, and 6 months since stroke.SETTING: Stroke rehabilitation and community-based.PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 87 individuals, median (interquartile range) age 71.5 (65-80) years, 15.0 (12-20) days post-stroke.INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The affected UE was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment, grip strength, Action Research Arm Test, the Box and Block Test (BBT), and The Rating of Everyday Arm-Use in the Community and Home. Participants also rated how much they perceive that their affected UE recovered from the stroke using U-Rate-UE; 0-100 (no to full recovery). Longitudinal changes in U-Rate-UE ratings were assessed. In addition, at 6 weeks and 6 months post-stroke, the change in BBT was calculated and participants were grouped into achieved/did not achieve the minimal detectable change (MDC). Correlations between U-Rate-UE to the other UE assessments were assessed at all 3 timepoints.RESULTS: Significant changes in U-Rate-UE were seen over time (P<.05). At 6 weeks and 6 months, participants who achieved BBT-MDC rated their recovery significantly higher than participants who did not. U-Rate-UE was moderately-strongly significantly correlated to UE assessments (rho=.61-.85, P<.001).CONCLUSIONS: The U-Rate-UE is supported for use with UE assessments contributing to comprehensive clinical understanding of the recovery of the affected UE in adults post-stroke.
rehabilitation,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?