Background and Purpose: Little information is available about change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during the first few months following acute stroke, and whether baseline variables can predict who will have the largest improvement in HRQoL. This study assessed the change in HRQoL from 1 to 6 months following acute stroke and the determinants of these changes. Methods: Patients >60 years of age, who had experienced an acute stroke and were admitted to hospital within 24 h of onset, were followed longitudinally. HRQoL was assessed with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health status questionnaire. Results: Of 550 eligible stroke patients, 315 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were alive after 30 days. At 1 month, 179 patients responded to the questionnaire, of whom also 140 responded at 6 months following acute stroke. From 1 to 6 months following stroke, all dimensions of the SF-36 improved. The magnitude of change was largest on the role-physical and role-emotional scales and lowest on the bodily pain and mental health scales. Higher physical component summary (PCS) score at 1 month was associated with lower odds of being above the 75th percentile of change in PCS score between the assessments, and higher baseline mental component summary (MCS) score was associated with lower odds of being above the 75th percentile of change in MCS. Treatment in a stroke unit was associated with an increase in the MCS score and higher neurological score with an increase in PCS score of the SF-36. Conclusion: This prospective study showed a considerable improvement in HRQoL from 1 to 6 months after stroke; however, no baseline variables except baseline scores were associated with changes in HRQoL during the 5-month period.

1.
Jørgensen HS, Kammersgaard LP, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Larsen K, Hubbe P, Olsen TS: Treatment and rehabilitation on a stroke unit improves 5-year survival: a community-based study. Stroke 1999;30:930–933.
2.
Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou, Vive-Larsen J, Støier M, Olsen T: Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. I. Outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995;76:399–405.
3.
Carandang R, Seshadri S, Beiser A, Kelly-Hayes M, Kase CS, Kannel WB, Wolf PA: Trends in incidence, lifetime risk, severity, and 30-day mortality of stroke over the past 50 years. JAMA 2006;296:2939–2946.
4.
Warlow CP, Dennis MS, van Gijn J: Stroke. A Practical Guide to Management. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific, 2001.
5.
Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito A, Witter DM, Enarson C, Mtachar D: Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke 1997;28:740–745.
6.
Wilkinson PR, Wolfe CDA, Warburton FG, Rudd AG, Howard RS, Ross-Russel RW, Beech R: Longer term quality of life and outcome in stroke patients: is the Barthel index alone an adequate measure of outcome? Qual Health Care 1997;6:125–130.
7.
Wade DT, Collins C: The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability. Int Disabil Stud 1988;10:64–67.
8.
Schuling J, Greidanus J, Meyboom-de Jong B: Measuring functional status of stroke patients with the Sickness Impact Profile. Disabil Rehabil 1993;15:19–23.
9.
Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Kollen BJ, Lankhorst GJ: Predicting disability in stroke: a critical review of the literature. Age Ageing 1996;25:479–489.
10.
Hayes V, Morris J, Wolfe C, Morgan M: The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: is it suitable with older adults? Age Ageing 1995;24:120–125.
11.
Muller-Nordhorn J, Nolte CH, Rossnagel K, Jungehulsing GJ, Reich A, Roll S, Villringer A, Willich SN: The use of the 12-item short-form health status instrument in a longitudinal study of patients with stroke and transient ischaemic attack. Neuroepidemiology 2005;24:196–202.
12.
Pickard AS, Johnsen JA, Feeney DH: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005;14:207–219.
13.
Van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ: Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:480–484.
14.
Official Statistics of Norway. Oslo, Statistics Norway, 1994.
15.
WHO Special Report: Stroke – 1989: recommendations on stroke prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Stroke 1989;20:1407–1431.
16.
Scandinavian Stroke Study Group: Multicenter trial of hemodilution in acute ischemic stroke: background and study protocol. Stroke 1985;16:885–890.
17.
Rønning OM, Guldvog B: Stroke units vs. general medical wards. II. Neurological deficits and ADL: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. Stroke 1998;29:586–590.
18.
Rønning OM, Guldvog B: Stroke units vs. general medical wards. I. Twelve and eighteen months survival: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke 1998;29:58–62.
19.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.
20.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD: SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. A User’s Manual. Boston, Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1994.
21.
Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R: Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke 1996;27:1812–1816.
22.
Lyons RA, Perry HM, Littlepage BNC: Evidence for the validity of the Short-form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing 1994;23:182–184.
23.
Loge JH, Kaasa S: Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scand J Soc Med 1998;26:250–258.
24.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Med J 1965;14:61–65.
25.
Suenkeler IH, Nowak M, Misselwitz B, Kugler C, Schreiber W, Oertel WH, Back T: Time course of health-related quality of life as determined 3, 6 and 12 months after stroke: relationship to neurological deficit, disability and depression. J Neurol 2002;249:1160–1167.
26.
Hopman WM, Verner J: Quality of life during and after inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2003;34:801–805.
27.
Kwok T, Lo RS, Wong E, Wai-Kwong T, Mok V, Kai-Sing W: Quality of life of stroke survivors: a 1-year follow-up study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1177–1182.
28.
Jonsson AC, Lindgren I, Hallstrom B, Norrving B, Lindgren A: Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors and their informal caregivers. Stroke 2005;36:803–808.
29.
Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression. New York, Wiley & Sons Inc, 1989.
30.
Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley JA, Cohen SR: Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift? Qual Life Res 2005;14:611–627.
31.
Tu Y, Gilthorpe MS: Revisiting the relation between change and initial value: a review and evaluation. Stat Med 2007;26:443–457.
32.
Schwartz CE, Bode R, Repucci N, Becker J, Sprangers MA, Fayers PM: The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: a meta-analysis of response shift. Qual Life Res 2006;15:1533–1550.
33.
Van Loon AJ, Tijhuis M, Picavet HS, Surtees PG, Ormel J: Survey non-response in the Netherlands: effects on prevalence estimates and associations. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13;105–110.
34.
Hoeymans N, Feskens EJM, Van den Boos GAM, Kromhout D: Non-response bias in a study of cardiovascular diseases, functional status and self-rated health among elderly men. Age Ageing 1998;27:35–40.
35.
Carod Jartal J, Egido JA, Gonzalez JL, Varela de Seijas E: Quality of life among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: experience of a stroke unit. Stroke 2000;31:2995–3000.
36.
Kauhanen ML, Korpelainen JT, Hiltunen P, Nieminen P, Sotaniemi KA, Myllyla VV: Domains and determinants of quality of life after stroke caused by brain infarction. Arch Phys Med 2000;81:1541–1546.
37.
Mc Cullagh E, Brigstocke G, Donaldson N, Kalra L: Determinants of caregiving burden and quality of life in caregivers of stroke patients. Stroke 2005;36:2181–2186.
38.
Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L: Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993;306:1437–1444.
39.
Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE: The Swedish SF-36 health survey. I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:1349–1358.
40.
Vickers AJ, Altman DG: Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measurements. BMJ 2001;323:1123–1124.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.