Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Time trends in ability level and functional outcome of stroke and multiple sclerosis patients undergoing comprehensive rehabilitation in Slovenia Cover

Time trends in ability level and functional outcome of stroke and multiple sclerosis patients undergoing comprehensive rehabilitation in Slovenia

Slovenian Journal of Public Health
Volume 50 (2011): Issue 1 (March 2011)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Jan 2011
References

References

  1. Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research: functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (12 Suppl 2): S21-9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Brock KA, Vale SJ, Cotton SM. The effect of the introduction of a case-mix-based funding model of rehabilitation for severe stroke: an Australian experience. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 827-32.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tasman JS. A uniform data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brooks, 1987: 137-47.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 10-4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Bottemiller KL, Bieber PL, Basford JR, Harris M. FIM score, FIM efficiency, and discharge disposition following inpatient stroke rehabilitiation. Rehabil Nurs 2006; 31: 22-5.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Seel RT, Wright G, Wallace T, Newman S, Dennis L. The utility of the FIM+FAM for assessing traumatic brain injury day program outcomes. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2007; 22: 267-77.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. Khan F, Pallant JF, Brand C, Kilpatric TJ. Effectiveness of rehabilitiation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomised control trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79: 1230-5.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Lieberman D, Friger M, Lieberman D. Rehabilitation outcome following hip fracture surgery in elderly diabetics: a prospective cohort study of 224 patients. Disabil Rehabil 2007: 339-45.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Gabbe BJ, Simpson PM, Sutherland AM, Williamson OD, Judson R, Kossmann T, et al. Functional measures at discharge: are they useful predictors of long term outcomes for trauma registries? Ann Surg 2008; 247: 854-9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Muslimovic D, Post B, Speelman JD, Schmand B, de Haan RJ; CARPA Study Group. Determinants of disability and quality of life in mild to moderate Parkinson disease. Neurology 2008; 70: 2241-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S. The Functional Independence Measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 1291-4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Lin KC, Wu CY, Wei TH, Gung C, Lee CY, Liu JS. Effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on reach-to-grasp movements and functional performance after chronic stroke: a randomised controlled study. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 1075-86.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Bowman M, Faux S, Wilson S. Rural inpatient rehabilitation by specialist outreach: comparison with a city unit. Aust J Rural Health 2008; 16: 237-40.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Ostwald SK, Swank PR, Khan MM. Predictors of functional independence and stress level of stroke at discharge from inpatient rehabiltiation. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2008; 23: 371-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-32.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1101-8.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitations scales through differential item functining within the framework of the Rasch model. The PRO-ESor project. Medical Care 2004; 42 (Suppl 1) :I-37-48.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Lawton G, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Biering-Sorensen F, Tesio L, Slade A, Penta M, et al. Cross-cultural validity of FIM in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 746-52.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 72: 84-9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Tennant A, Grimby G, Sunnerhagen KS. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 55.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard J-L, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through Differential Item Functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42 (1 Suppl): I-37-48.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care 2002; 2: e15.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1990; 21: 241-6.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Huber PJ. Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math Statist 1964; 35: 73-101.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008, URL
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2002.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Hunter J. Outcome, indices and measurements. In: CJ Goodwill, MA Chamberlain, C Evans, editors. Rehabilitation of the physically disabled adult. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes, 1997: 87-100.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Wright J, Cross J, Lamb SE. Physiotherapy outcome measures for rehabilitation of elderly people: responsiveness to change of the Rivermead Mobility Index and Barthel Index. Physiotherapy 1998; 84: 216-21.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Wheeler DJ. Understanding Variation. 2nd ed. Knoxville: SPC Press, 2000.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Vidmar G, Burger H, Marinček Č, Cugelj R. Analysis of data on assessment with the Functional Independent Measure at the Institute for Rehabilitation, Republic of Slovenia. Inf Med Slov 2008; 13: 21-32.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Vidmar G. Monitoring functional independence in a rehabilitation hospital: an example of efficient use of a simple mixture distribution model. Inf Med Slov 2009; 14: 19-23.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Cook Johnson C. The effects of single and compound violations of data set assumptions when using the oneway, fixed effects analysis of variance and the one concomitant analysis of covariance statistical models. New Orleans: Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association; 1993. Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/30/98.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Erratum. Int J Integr Care 2008; 8: e72.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Haas U, Mayer H, Evers GC. Interobserver reliability of the "Functional Independence Measure" (FIM) in patients with craniocerebral injuries. Pflege 2002; 15: 191-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. Lundgren-Nilsson A, Grimby G, Ring H, Tesio L, Lawton G, Slade A, Penta M, et al. Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 23-31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tennant A, Grimby G, Sunnerhagen KS. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 23; 4: 55.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Gabbe BJ, Sutherland AM, Wolfe R, Williamson OD, Cameron PA. Can the modified functional independence measure be reliably obtained from the patient medical record by different raters? Trauma 2007; 63: 1374-9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Kohler F, Dickson H, Redmond H, Estell J, Connolly C. Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 479-85.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10152-010-0025-6 | Journal eISSN: 1854-2476 | Journal ISSN: 0351-0026
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English, Slovenian
Page range: 24 - 33
Published on: Jan 17, 2011
Published by: National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
stroke,
multiple sclerosis,
outcome and process assessment (health care),
rehabilitation centers
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Hygiene and environmental medicine

© 2011 Gaj Vidmar, Helena Burger, Črt Marinček, published by National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 50 (2011): Issue 1 (March 2011)
Previous article
Next article