Background: Few studies explore the patient heterogeneity, trajectory development, and factors influencing the functional recovery of the postacute care cerebrovascular disease (PAC-CVD) program. The objective of the study was to analyze the group-based trajectory and different functional improvement for patients with acute stroke participating in the PAC-CVD program.
Materials and Methods: A total of 328 patients with acute stroke who had participated in PAC-CVD program in rehabilitation departments of three hospitals from 2014 to 2017 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was applied to analyze the clinical characteristics between high- and low-function groups (LFGs). The analysis of variance and Chi-square test were used to analyze the association between functional grouping and patients' characteristics.
Results: In the study baseline, patients could be divided into high function group (HFG; 85/328 = 25.9%), medium function group (MFG; 128/328 = 39.02%), and (LFG; 115/328 = 35.06%) by LPA. age ( = 0.001), length of hospital stays ( = 0.001), male sex ( = 0.048), and lesion type ( = 0.023) were significantly associated with being grouped in the high-function group. After 6 weeks of rehabilitation training, 100% of HFG remained as HFG, 49.04% of MFG transitioned to HFG, and 50% of MFG continued to remain as MFG. 8.41% of LFG transitioned to HFG, 57% of LFG transitioned to MFG, but still, 34.58% of LFG continued to remain as LFG.
Conclusion: Identifying initial functional groups can guide medical professionals to target patients for PAC service use. PAC-CVD high-intensity rehabilitation significantly enhances acute stroke patients' functional recovery, though effectiveness varies over time. These factors highlight the need for further development of rehabilitation programs to boost patient independence.
Health Serv Res. 2009 Aug;44(4):1188-210
[PMID:
19490159]
Med Care. 2010 Sep;48(9):776-84
[PMID:
20706167]
J Res Med Sci. 2020 Aug 24;25:78
[PMID:
33088315]
Rev Neurol. 2012 Sep 16;55(6):337-42
[PMID:
22972575]
World Neurosurg. 2011 Dec;76(6 Suppl):S85-90
[PMID:
22182277]
J Res Med Sci. 2022 Nov 25;27:82
[PMID:
36685031]
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):417-418
[PMID:
30871943]
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):34-43
[PMID:
19443346]
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1516-20
[PMID:
16084801]
Ann Med. 2010 Dec;42(8):630-6
[PMID:
20883138]
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Nov;88(11):1526-34
[PMID:
17964900]
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Jun;18(3):689-94
[PMID:
21395923]
Psychol Methods. 2012 Jun;17(2):228-43
[PMID:
22309957]
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2068-72
[PMID:
19359645]
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;18(11):990.e7-990.e12
[PMID:
28804011]
Cancer Nurs. 2019 May/Jun;42(3):198-207
[PMID:
29601360]
Crit Care Med. 2007 Sep;35(9):2025-30
[PMID:
17855816]
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021 Jan;28(1):61-71
[PMID:
32657256]
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Apr;94(4):622-9
[PMID:
23124133]
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Dec;92(12):2057-70
[PMID:
22133256]
Iran Biomed J. 2015;19(3):133-42
[PMID:
26117138]
Phys Ther. 2017 Oct 1;97(10):1030-1040
[PMID:
29029552]
Nutrition. 1999 Feb;15(2):116-22
[PMID:
9990575]
J Pediatr Psychol. 2014 Mar;39(2):174-87
[PMID:
24277769]
Nurs Res. 2012 May-Jun;61(3):204-12
[PMID:
22551995]
Neurology. 2018 Apr 17;90(16):e1364-e1371
[PMID:
29592886]
Stroke. 2011 Feb;42(2):427-32
[PMID:
21164120]
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 May 1;6(5):e2310302
[PMID:
37133864]
J Rehabil Med. 2018 Jan 10;50(1):37-44
[PMID:
29068037]