Short ICF-based measures in subacute stroke
lationships of disability, i.e. whether they are based on
the brain lesion itself or on its secondary consequences.
The patient population in tertiary clinic intensive inpa-
tient rehabilitation is always selected and is limited in
number, but we find the sample size adequate for the
purposes of the study. As different generic functioning
scales were used, direct comparisons were not possible
for all sub-items. Even if WHODAS is often used in
chronic health conditions, it also appeared suitable in
the subacute phase, as in our rehabilitant population.
The patients with most severely impaired cognitive abi-
lities, including aphasia, could not themselves respond
to self-rating WHODAS. Usually these patients are
omitted from studies on perceived functioning, but as
we found it important also to obtain information about
patients with very severe stroke, the assessments from
their significant others were included.
In conclusion, both generic ICF-based functioning
measures (the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO
Minimal Generic Set), despite their brevity, were
useful in determining disabilities of subacute stroke
patients for patient- and family-centred goal-setting
and service-planning. These measures correlated well
with each other and with other measures of dependence
and severity of stroke. At discharge from subacute
stroke rehabilitation, we recommend using the 12-item
WHODAS 2.0. In the light of these results, assessment
is easy, both for proxies and, with the exception of the
most severe stroke, for patients themselves.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R, Mensah GA,
Connor M, Bennett DA, et al. Global and regional burden
of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Bur-
den of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2014; 383: 245–254.
2. Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD,
Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)
for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010:
a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2197–2223.
3. Singh RJ, Chen S, Ganesh A, Hill MD. Long-term neurolo-
gical, vascular, and mortality outcomes after stroke. Int J
Stroke 2018; 13: 787–796.
4. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures
in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some
recommendations to improve practice. Stroke 2000; 31:
1429–1438.
5. Kasner SE. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales.
Lancet Neurology 2006; 5: 603–612.
6. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional
outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J
Stroke 2009; 4: 200–205.
7. Andersen CR, Fitzgerald E, Delaney A, Finfer S. A systema-
tic review of outcome measures employed in aneurysmal
subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) clinical research. Neu-
rocrit Care 2019; 30: 534–541.
8. Packard L, Khan M, Gillespie B. Relationship between
NIHSS scoring and FIM scoring among patients with CVA
on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
681
2016; 97: e86.
9. Konig IR, Ziegler A, Bluhmki E, Hacke W, Bath PM, Sacco
RL, et al. Predicting long-term outcome after acute ische-
mic stroke: a simple index works in patients from control-
led clinical trials. Stroke 2008; 39: 1821–1826.
10. Thorpe ER, Garrett KB, Smith AM, Reneker JC, Phillips RS.
Outcome measure scores predict discharge destination
in patients with acute and subacute stroke: a systematic
review and series of meta-analyses. J Neurol Phys Ther
2018; 42: 2–11.
11. Young FB, Weir CJ, Lees KR. Comparison of the National In-
stitutes of Health Stroke Scale with disability outcome mea-
sures in acute stroke trials. Stroke 2005; 36: 2187–2192.
12. Kasner SE. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales.
Lancet Neurology 2006; 5: 603–612.
13. Taylor-Rowan M, Wilson A, Dawson J, Quinn TJ. Functional
assessment for acute stroke trials: properties, analysis,
and application. Front Neurol 2018; 9: 191.
14. Salter KL, Foley NC, Jutai JW, Teasell RW. Assessment of
participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials of
stroke rehabilitation interventions. Int J Rehabil Res 2007;
30: 339–342.
15. Baker K, Cano SJ, Playford ED. Outcome measurement
in stroke: a scale selection strategy. Stroke 2011; 42:
1787–1794.
16. Salinas J, Sprinkhuizen SM, Ackerson T, Bernhardt J, Da-
vie C, George MG, et al. An international standard set of
patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke
2016; 47: 180–186.
17. Reeves M, Lisabeth L, Williams L, Katzan I, Kapral M,
Deutsch A, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
(PROMs) for acute stroke: rationale, methods and future
directions. Stroke 2018; 49: 1549–1556.
18. Kucukdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Yildizlar D, Oztuna D, Elhan AH,
Tennant A. The reliability and validity of the World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II)
in stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35: 214–220.
19. Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, Luciano JV. World
Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0:
an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2017;
39: 2347–2380.
20. Tarvonen–Schröder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Disability in
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis compared with traumatic
brain injury using the World Health Organization Disability
Assessment Schedule 2.0 and the International Classifica-
tion of Functioning minimal generic set. Int J Rehabil Res
2018; 41: 224–229.
21. Tarvonen-Schroder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, Laimi K.
Usability of World Health Organization Disability Assess-
ment Schedule in chronic traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil
Med 2018; 50: 514–518.
22. Tarvonen-Schroder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, Laimi K.
Comparing disability between traumatic brain injury and
spinal cord injury using the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the
WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and
health. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32: 1676–1683.
23. Tarvonen-Schroder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Utility of the
World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule
and the World Health Organization minimal generic set of
domains of functioning and health in spinal cord injury. J
Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 40–46.
24. Tarvonen-Schroder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Comparing
functioning in spinal cord injury and in chronic spinal pain
with two ICF-based instruments: WHODAS 2.0 and the
WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and
health. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 1241–1251.
25. Cieza A, Oberhauser C, Bickenbach J, Chatterji S, Stucki G.
Towards a minimal generic set of domains of functioning
and health. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 218.
26. Silva AG, Queiros A, Sa-Couto P, Rocha NP. Self-reported
disability: association with lower extremity performance
and other determinants in older adults attending primary
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019