Assistive devices in elderly people after stroke: A longitudinal, randomized study - The Göteborg 70+ stroke study

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 109-118

  Gosman Hedström, Gunilla ^a   Claesson, Lisbeth ^a   Blomstrand, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Assistive devices; Cost; Daily activities; Elderly; Intervention; Occupational therapy; Outcomes; Randomization; Stroke unit

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ELDERLY CARE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PRESCRIPTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TECHNICAL AID; WHEELCHAIR;

EID: 0036394298     PISSN: 11038128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11038120260246941     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, 1, 2002. Oxford: Update Software.
2. Sonn U, Grimby G. Assistive devices in an elderly population studied at 70 and 76 years of age. Disabil Rehabil 1994; 16: 85-92.
3. Gosman-Hedström G, Sonn U, Aniansson A. Different kinds of services and informal support in the daily life activities in a community-based elderly population. Aging (Milano) 1995; 7: 371-378.
4. Gosman-Hedström G, Claesson L, Blomstrand C, Fagerberg B, Lundgren-Lindquist B. Use and cost of assistive technology the first year after stroke - a randomized, controlled trial. The Göteborg 70 + Stroke Study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002 (in press).
5. Glader EL, Stegmayr B, Johansson L, Hulter-Åsberg K, Wester PO. Differences in long-term outcome between patients treated in stroke units and in general wards: a 2-year follow-up of stroke patients in Sweden. Stroke 2001; 32: 2124-2130.
6. Langhorne P, Stott DJ, Robertson L, et al. Medical complications after stroke: a multicenter study. Stroke 2000; 31: 1223-1229.
7. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
8. Johannesson M. Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996.
9. Watts J, Erickson A, Houde L, Wilson E, Maynard M. Assistive device use among the elderly: a national data-based study. Phys Occup Ther Geriatrics 1996; 14: 1-18.
10. Kohlmeyer K. Assistive and adaptive equipment. In: Hopkins H, Smith H, eds. Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy, 8th edn. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1993; 316-320.
11. Claesson L, Gosman-Hedström G, Johannesson M, Fagerberg B, Blomstrand C. Resource utilization and costs of stroke unit care integrated in a care continuum: a 1-year controlled, prospective, randomized study in elderly patients: The Göteborg 70 + Stroke Study. Stroke 2000; 31: 2569-2577.
12. Fagerberg B, Claesson L, Gosman-Hedström G, Blomstrand C. Effect of acute stroke unit care integrated with care continuum versus conventional treatment: a randomized 1-year study of elderly patients: the Göteborg 70 + Stroke Study. Stroke 2000; 31: 2578-2584.
13. Hamilton B, Granger CV, Scherwin F, Zielnzny M, Tashman J. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Führer MJ, ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurements. Baltimore: MD Brookes Publishing, 1987; 137-147.
14. Indredavik B, Bakke F, Solberg R, Rokseth R, Håheim LL, Holme I. Benefit of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke 1991; 22: 1026-1031.
15. Strand T, Asplund K, Eriksson S, Hägg E, Lithner F, Wester PO. A non-intensive stroke unit reduces functional disability and the need for long-term hospitalization. Stroke 1985; 16: 29-34.
16. Langhorne P, Dennis M. Stroke units: an evidence based approach. London: BMJ Books, 1998.
17. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
18. Claesson L, Gosman-Hedström G, Fagerberg B, Blomstrand C. Hospital re-admissions in relation to acute stroke unit care vs conventional care in elderly patients the first year after stroke. The Göteborg 70 + Stroke Study. Submitted 2002.
19. Hass U. Assessment of assistive technology - outcomes, costs and quality. Dissertation, Linköping University, 1996.
20. Day HY, Jutai J, Woolrich W, Strong G. The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 400-404.
21. Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assist Technol 1996; 8: 103-109.
22. Hesse S, Gahein-Sama A, Mauritz K-H. Technical aids in hemiparetic patients: prescripton, costs and usage. Clin Rehabil 1996; 10: 328-333.
23. Neville-Jan A, Verrier Piersol C, Kielhofner G, Davis K. Adaptive equipment: a study of utilization after hospital discharge. Occup Ther Health Care 1993; 8: 3-18.
24. Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist 1998; 38: 169-180.
25. Häggblom Kronlöf G, Sonn U. Elderly women's way of relating to assistive devices. Technol Disabil 1999: 161-168.
26. Hass U, Freden-Karlsson I, Persson J. Assistive technologies in stroke rehabilitation from a user perspective. Scand J Caring Sci 1996; 10: 75-80.
27. Yerxa EJ. Seeking a relevant, ethical, and realistic way of knowing for occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther 1991; 45: 199-204.
28. Post KM. The promise of assistive technology. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47: 965-967.
29. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 31-37.
30. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 21-30.
31. Andrich R, Besio S. Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers of assistive technology: an educational issue. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 152-159.
32. Sax CL. Assistive technology education: an online model for rehabilitation professionals. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 144-151.
33. Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. Determining the content for an interactive training programme and interpretive guidelines for the Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 126-130.
34. Scherer MJ. The change in emphasis from people to person: introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 1-4.
35. Gillén G, Burkhardt A. Stroke rehabilitation. A functional based approach. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1998.
36. Bestmann A, Lingnau ML, Staats M, Hesse S. Phase specific technical AIDS prescription in neurological rehabilitation. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2001; 40: 346-351.
37. Harrington T, Harrington M. Gerontechnology. Why and How? Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2000.