Effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation on self-care abilities of individuals with multiple sclerosis

NeuroRehabilitation

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 141-151

  Mathiowetz, Virgil ^a   Matuska, Kathleen M ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b ST CATHERINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Adapted equipment; Functional assessment; Functional outcomes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GROOMING; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PERSONAL HYGIENE; SELF CARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031664468     PISSN: 10538135     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1053-8135(98)00018-3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. LaRocca NG. Analyzing outcomes in the care of persons with multiple sclerosis. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1987:151-162.
2. The VA multiple sclerosis rehabilitation study group-Bourdette DN, Prochazka A, Mitchell W, Licari P, Burks J. Health care costs of veterans with multiple sclerosis: implications for the rehabilitation of MS. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:26-31.
3. Feigenson JS, Scheinberg L, Catalano M et al. The cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: a model. Neurology 1981;31:1316-1322.
4. Greenspun B, Stineman M, Agri R. Multiple sclerosis and rehabilitation outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:434-437.
5. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. A guide for the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation (Adult FIM), Version 4.0. Buffalo: State University of New York-Buffalo and the Center for Functional Assessment Research, 1993.
6. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Shcrwin F, Zielezny M, Tashman J. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1987:137-147.
7. Brosseau L. The interrater reliability and construct validity of the functional independence measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil 1994;8:107-115.
8. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago Functional Assessment Scale manual, Version IV. Chicago: Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 1996
9. Shinar D, Gross CR, Bronstein K et al. Reliability of the activities of daily living scale and its use in a telephone interview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:723-728.
10. Smith PM, Illig SB, Fielder RC, Hamilton BB, Ottenbacher KJ. Intermodal agreement of follow-up telephone functional assessment using the functional independence measure in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:431-435.
11. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. RIC-FAS Version 3. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago Functional Assessment Scale. Chicago: Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 1992.
12. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444-1452.
13. Bynum HS, Rogers JC. The use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occup Ther J Res 1987;7:181-191.
14. Geiger CM. The utilization of assistive devices by patients discharged from an acute rehabilitation setting. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 1990;9:3-25.
15. Gitlin LN, Levine R, Geiger C. Adaptive devices use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:149-152.
16. Mann WC, Hurren D, Tomita M. Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different disabilities. Am J Occup Ther 1993;47:980-987.