Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Behavioural Neurology
Volume 2018, Article ID 5472018, 22 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5472018
Review Article

Scoping Review: The Trajectory of Recovery of Participation Outcomes following Stroke

1Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
2Occupational Therapy, Department of Community and Clinical Allied Health, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3Neurorehabilitation and Recovery, Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
4Occupational Therapy Department, St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia
5Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Batya Engel-Yeger; li.ca.afiah.vinu@legneb

Received 6 April 2018; Revised 29 June 2018; Accepted 26 July 2018; Published 9 September 2018

Academic Editor: Norbert Kovács

Copyright © 2018 Batya Engel-Yeger et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Participation is a central concept in health and well-being and healthcare, yet operationalizing this concept has been difficult. Its definition, uses in healthcare, and impacts on recovery require ongoing research. Our review question goes like this: from the longitudinal evidence investigating participation among stroke survivors, what are the patterns of participation recovery in stroke survivors over time, and what interventions are used to improve participation? To fully understand these questions, we also ask, how is participation defined in the stroke literature, and what are the measures of participation used in the stroke literature? A systematic scoping review was undertaken using the search terms “stroke,” “longitudinal,” “participation,” and “outcome” in seven databases. Articles included were published until April 2017, written in English, and had at least two longitudinal assessments of participation. Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health was the most frequent definition of participation used (34%). There were 22 different measures of participation. Eight of ten studies demonstrated significant improvements in participation up to 12 months poststroke. Efficacy of interventions and their impact on participation varied. The various definitions, measures, and intervention efficacies of participation highlight the need for further research worldwide into achieving meaningful participation and quality of life among stroke survivors. Future practice should include participation as a main outcome measure.

1. Introduction

Stroke is the leading cause of adult disability worldwide [1]. Stroke remains a major global health concern, and its significance is likely to increase in the future due to ongoing demographic changes including the aging of the population and health transitions [2, 3].

Participation is considered a major outcome of successful rehabilitation [46] and an essential component of rehabilitation science [7]. Previous findings suggest that participation is a concern for stroke survivors [4], is considered an unmet need [8], is influenced by the environment [9], and may be affected by age, acceptance of stroke, body functions (including upper limb function, depression, and other comorbidities [10, 11]), cognition [12], skills like walking, and stroke severity [13].

Stroke is a chronic condition for survivors, with long-term implications such as loss of control over their bodies, valued activities, meaningful skills, and social roles [14, 15] which may disrupt their daily life, relationships, and expectations of the future [16]. These multiple losses may further influence one’s ability to participate in everyday life activities across their lifespan, thus highlighting the importance of investigating participation outcomes among stroke survivors over an extended period of time [17]. While task-specific and learning-based approaches to rehabilitation have the strongest evidence base [18], evidence regarding participation after stroke and intervention programs for enhancing participation in the long term is lacking [19]. Moreover, rehabilitation studies do not often include participation outcomes [19], and studies that do refer to participation do not often use a conceptual framework nor a clear definition of participation. This lack of consensus surrounding the conceptualization of participation has led to difficulties operationalizing participation [2023]. These difficulties may result from the diverse definitions and interpretations of participation as a concept and from the wide variety of tools purporting to measure participation [24], making participation evaluation variable, challenging, and difficult to interpret.

In summary, participation is a central concept in healthcare and in disciplines such as occupational therapy [25]. Yet its definition and inclusion in health outcomes and its impacts on recovery over time are relatively limited to date and require ongoing research [7]. The rising prevalence of stroke and its significant consequences, in particular, the fact that participation is a significant factor that affects people’s functioning [26], emphasize that it is essential to better understand the recovery of participation as an outcome and how participation may be a targeted outcome in interventions for stroke survivors. This directed investigation may contribute to the conceptualization of participation and its application in health theory and practice [25].

1.1. Objective of the Scoping Review

To the best of our knowledge, a scoping review of the literature investigating the recovery of participation outcomes after stroke has not been conducted. The aim of this scoping review was to critically review the evidence investigating recovery of participation outcomes following stroke. The main questions guiding our review evaluation and evidence synthesis of the longitudinal studies investigating participation after stroke: (i) what are the patterns of recovery in participation outcomes in stroke survivors over time and (ii) what interventions are used to improve participation? To fully understand these questions, we also ask, how is participation defined, and what are the measures of participation used in the stroke literature?

2. Materials and Methods

This scoping review was based on the methods outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [27], which include six iterative steps: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting the studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) consulting with stakeholders to inform or validate findings. A scoping review methodology was selected because it can include broad questions and a range of research approaches surrounding a topic of interest. This methodology assists to identify the gaps in the current knowledge base to help guide future research in the field. Step 6, consultation with stakeholders is optional. We did not directly consult stroke stakeholders. However, ongoing consultation by the authors as the key stakeholders occurred throughout the review process.

The research question and the search terms were developed in consultation amongst the authors. The search terms were related to the study population, the intervention, the comparison or outcome, and the types of study design to include in the review. Seven databases were searched: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, CINAHL Plus, Medline, and PsycINFO using the search terms “stroke,” “longitudinal,” “participation,” and “outcome.” Synonyms, wildcards, and Boolean operators were used in the search strategy (Table 1). Study designs included were longitudinal cohort, case control, pre-post test, and case series and case report studies with or without intervention. Included studies were written in English, published up to April 2017, and had at least two participation evaluation time points in the same sample, and with the same participation instrument, as defined by the authors of the study under review. Studies investigating paediatric stroke and severe comorbidities such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer were excluded.

Table 1: Search terms.
2.1. Data Extraction

Three reviewers worked together to evaluate all articles for this review using Covidence online systematic review platform [28]. Each article was independently reviewed following a systematic process according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus.

3. Results

The flow of studies through the process is shown in Figure 1. The final number of studies included in this scoping review was 59. The summary of data extracted from each of the articles is provided in Table 2. Most of the studies included an assessment of participation in a community setting (85%); four of the 59 studies (7%) included assessments of participation only in an inpatient setting; and three studies did not state the setting location. Sixteen studies did not describe the assessor; of the remaining studies, the majority (81%) of assessors were physiotherapists and occupational therapists. When grouped into continents, the majority of the studies were based in North America (47%), followed by Europe (32%), Australasia (15%), Africa (3%), mixed countries (3%), and South America (2%). Interestingly, the earliest study in our scoping review was in 2001.

Figure 1: PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.
Table 2: Extracted data from studies included in the scoping review on longitudinal participation outcomes after stroke.
3.1. Patterns of Participation Recovery after Stroke

Of the 59 studies, all included two time points, 38 had a third measurement time of participation, 18 had a fourth, and 18 had a fifth measurement time. The terminology used to describe when participation was measured varied across the studies. Thirty-four of the studies (58%) called the first measure a baseline measure; the remaining studies described the measure in terms of a time point poststroke (37%) or postintervention/discharge (5%). The most frequent measurements of participation poststroke were 6 months, then 3 months, and then 12 months (see Table 3 for details).

Table 3: Time point of participation measurement by authors measuring participation longitudinally after stroke.

Following an intervention (35 of the 59 studies), the most frequent time to measure participation was immediately after the intervention (32%). The interventions ranged in duration (e.g., 30 hours of therapy to 4 months of therapy). The next most frequent time point to measure participation following an intervention was 6 months, followed by 3 months postintervention. Four studies measured participation following a period after discharge from a hospital/rehabilitation unit or physiotherapy. One study did not specify whether the 12-month follow-up was 12 months after baseline, intervention, or poststroke.

Although all 59 studies reported at least two measurement times of participation after stroke, only 10 studies statistically tested for change during the natural recovery of participation over time. Of these 10 studies, 8 demonstrated a significant improvement in participation over time. These eight studies included the following time points: stroke to 3 months; stroke to 6 months; 2-3 months to 6 months; and 6 months to 12 months. The two studies that did not find a significant change included one study that tested participation at a mean time poststroke of 6 years poststroke and then measured participation again 3 months later following intervention. The other study did not show a significant improvement from 3 months to 6 months poststroke.

3.2. Intervention Efficacy and Impact on Participation

There were 17 randomized control trials included in this review, as detailed in Table 4. Of the 12 studies, 8 demonstrated a significant association with participation. Three of these studies used a form of supervised exercise program, compared to usual care, to improve participation, and measured using the Participation domain of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-P). One study demonstrated the use of a leisure therapy program on improved participation, measured in minutes engaged in leisure activities and the number of leisure activities compared to controls. One study showed that the use of therapist-supervised repetitive task practice (RTP) had a greater effect on participation than RTP combined with robotic-assisted therapy at 2 months follow-up. Three studies found that participation improved over time regardless of the intervention (cognitive behavioral therapy versus computerized cognitive training, aerobic exercise versus no therapy, and patient education program versus placebo group).

Table 4: Summary of randomized control trial data in this review on longitudinal participation outcomes after stroke.

The four studies that did not demonstrate a significant relationship with participation included three interventions focusing on the use of specific physical therapy interventions (foot drop stimulator versus standard ankle foot orthosis, body weight–supported exercise compared to overground walking training, and community-based fitness and mobility exercise protocol versus usual care) and one intervention focusing on a client-centred activities of daily living (ADL) program versus usual care.

3.3. Measuring Participation

There were 22 different measures of participation used in the included studies. The SIS-P was the tool used by 24 of 59 studies (46%) included in this review, as detailed in Table 5. Of the 24 studies that used the SIS-P, 9 used the ICF definition of participation, 13 used an operational definition, four used “meaningful activities/occupations,” two used “community participation,” and one used the term “social participation.” The next most frequent measure of participation was the LIFE-H. All studies using the LIFE-H () used the Disability Creation Process conceptual framework definition. Four studies used the London Handicap Scale; of these, three used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition of participation, and the other used an operational definition. Three studies used the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation; of these, all used an operational definition of participation. Three studies used the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); of these, two used the operational definition, and the other used the term “role participation.”

Table 5: Tools measuring participation longitudinally after stroke.
3.4. Definitions of Participation

Of the 59 studies included in this review, many did not provide a definition of participation (41%), instead only describing the tool used in the study as measuring participation (e.g., “participation was measured using the Stroke Impact Scale”). This was categorized as an operational definition. Of the remaining studies, the most frequent definition of participation was the ICF definition (34%), “i.e. involvement in a life situation.” The remaining definitions used by two or fewer studies are reported in Table 6.

Table 6: Definitions of participation reported by authors measuring participation longitudinally after stroke.

When we compared the definition of participation used in the study as a proportion of the studies from each of the continents, we found that operational definitions and the ICF definition were widely used across all continents (see Table 7).

Table 7: Definitions of participation relative to the proportion of studies from each continent in this review on longitudinal participation outcomes after stroke.

4. Discussion

This scoping review aimed to critically review the evidence regarding patterns of recovery of participation outcomes among stroke survivors and to summarize the patterns of recovery and intervention efficacy on participation outcomes over time. The earliest publication included in this scoping review was in 2001, when the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed the ICF, of which participation is a core component, suggesting that the use of the term “participation” is related to the release of the ICF by the WHO. The impact of the ICF on participation may also be reflected by the origin of the included publications. Our scoping review revealed that the majority of the studies were conducted in North America—the origin of conceptual frameworks including participation such as the Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance (PEOP) and ICF [29]. Interestingly, this scoping review also included studies performed in many other counties and continents (e.g., Europe, Australasia, Africa, and South America), supporting the perception that participation is a major outcome measure of intervention and recovery and is accepted worldwide.

4.1. Patterns of Participation Recovery Outcomes over Time

The findings from this scoping review revealed that participation is most often measured 6 months poststroke, followed by 3 months poststroke, and 12 months poststroke. These findings may lead us to suggest that participation recovery occurs at these time points. However, this may not be the true trajectory of recovery of participation. Rather, we are limited by the measurement tools and time points under which they occurred. Nonetheless, previous studies have suggested that, among stroke survivors, progressive and significant functional recovery in participation outcomes may occur during the first 6 months [30]. The findings from our scoping review extends this knowledge, highlighting that improvements in participation does occur over time and up to 12 months poststroke. However, the percentage of the studies that performed these longer follow-ups to 12 months is low. There were even fewer studies conducting follow-up beyond 12 months. This may be due to the difficulties of a cohort study, such as the financial cost of conducting long-term studies, participant drop-outs, difficulties following up participants in rural and remote settings, and educational background of the population (the ability to read and write) [30].

4.2. Intervention Efficacy on Participation and Recovery

Findings of intervention efficacy and impact on participation were not consistent in the studies included in this scoping review—only some studies found improvement in participation resulting from posttreatment recovery. Some reported improvement in participation due to spontaneous recovery. Other studies did not find a relationship between intervention and participation.

The studies that found improvement in participation used varying intervention strategies, such as supervised exercise programs, leisure therapy programs, and repetitive task practice. The studies that did not find a relationship between intervention and participation applied specific techniques such as cognitive behavior therapy or focused on improving specific body functions, mainly motor functions (using, for example, foot drop stimulator, body weight support, or walking training). These results raise questions regarding the literature claiming that intervention should aim to improve one daily activity, such as walking, to enhance participation. As previous research has stressed [30], improvements in participation levels of patients with stroke require particular attention to situations demanding community, social, and civic involvement. Further, in this scoping review, several of the outcomes on participation referred to mobility, fitness, and other aspects of physical/motor function. It may be assumed that because these studies were performed by physiotherapists, special attention was given to this area. This supports Kjellberg et al. [31], who stated that participation in the physical field is highly represented in the literature of stroke survivors. To fully utilize and apply these findings in health theory and practice, they should be interpreted in relation to how the measurement of participation was conceptualized and measured by the studies in this scoping review.

4.3. Measuring Participation

This scoping review found various measures of participation that were used across studies. The most prevalent measures found in this scoping review were the SIS-P, followed by the LIFE-H. Previous studies investigating these tools and other tools purporting to measure participation have highlighted that the different tools measure different domains of participation (e.g., Community, Social and Civic Life, Domestic Life, and Activities of Daily Living) and different aspects of participation (i.e., frequency, restrictions, satisfaction); the administration and response formats are different (e.g., self-report, interviewer-administered), and the psychometric properties varied [24, 3234]. For example, in the study by Tse et al. [24], the Participation domain of the SIS covered four of the nine Activities and Participation domains of the ICF, whereas the LIFE-H covered seven of the nine domains. Further, each tool covered each domain of the ICF to varying degrees: the SIS-P contained three items in the Community, Social and Civic Life domain of the ICF, whereas the LIFE-H contained nine. These differences in how participation is measured impacts on our future understanding and conceptualization of participation. For example, Kossi et al. [35], who measured participation using the Participation Measurement Scale (PM-Scale) that covers all nine ICF domains, found that some participation domains are affected by stroke more than others: participation in community, social, and civic life; interpersonal interactions and relationships; and domestic life [35]. Similarly, Heinemann et al. [36] stressed that greater restrictions in participation among stroke survivors are related to community, social, and civic life.

Further, it has been shown that the different aspects of participation are only partially correlated [37]. Blomer et al. [37] compared the association between participation frequency, participation restriction, and participation satisfaction using the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation. They found that the strongest independent association was between participation restriction and participation frequency in vocational activities. Participation frequency in leisure and social activities was not independently associated with participation restriction, nor was participation frequency in leisure and social activities associated with participation satisfaction. This finding suggests the need for measures of participation to cover the varying aspects of participation in discrete scores and not measures that combine aspects of participation into one overall score. We suggest that, because the SIS-P covers a brief range of domains in Activities and Participation section of the ICF and it combines different aspects of participation into one score, it is best described as a screening tool of participation.

4.4. Definitions of Participation

Since the publication of the ICF in 2001, the concept of participation has become central in discussions across rehabilitation science [5]. Yet this scoping review found that many publications did not provide a definition of participation but rather described the tool used in the study to measure participation (such as the SIS). The studies that used a definition of participation used varying definitions, such as role participation, community participation, social participation, participation as reflected in meaningful activities/occupations, or life habits. Nevertheless, the most frequently used definition was that of the ICF, which emphasizes that health is broader than a purely medical or biological conceptualization of dysfunction and must consider the influence of the environment and other contextual factors on functioning. Participation is defined by the ICF as an individual’s involvement in life situations [26]. It represents the societal perspective of functioning. According to the ICF, functioning is the interaction of individuals with their physical, social, and environment. More concretely, emphasis is on the individual’s ability to perform activities and to participate in real-life, everyday situations [26]. Indeed, since the publication of the ICF in 2001, the concept of participation has become central in discussions across rehabilitation science and practice.

Although the ICF conceptualization of participation is widely used, there are other conceptualizations of participation used within the health rehabilitation literature. The Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance (PEOP) is a model stemming from occupational therapy [29]. In the PEOP model, participation is defined as active engagement in daily life, families, work, and communities. In this model, occupational performance and participation are a result of the interaction between factors related to the person, the environment, and one’s chosen activity or occupation. According to the PEOP model, occupational performance reflects the doing, and participation reflects the active engagement in life. The conceptual framework on participation by Hammel and colleagues’ emphasizes the importance of participation choice, control, and engagement [38].

Using conceptual frameworks such as the ICF and the PEOP assist to develop theory and provide the rationale and guide the application of theory into practice [39]. The studies in this review conducted in Africa used only the ICF definition of participation, while those originating from other countries out of Africa (as seen in Table 7) used a variety of definitions of participation. Indeed, participation, specifically meaningful participation in everyday occupations, is a complex phenomenon to conceptualize and measure [40]. The reason for choosing one definition over another requires further study—is it because conceptual frameworks such as the ICF and the PEOP are not applied in specific geographic areas? Does it result from cultural reasons, from practical reasons such as the setting, or is it linked with existing evaluations of participation that cover definitions such as that of the ICF? Is it easier/more practical to measure participation in that specific definition? Are there financial reasons? Answers to these questions may help in establishing future studies and in turn better outcomes for stroke survivors.

Another finding is that the number of publications per year has not increased linearly. Considering that participation is an important outcome measure of intervention, it would be expected that the number of publications should rise. Research and practice should elucidate factors that may lead to an increase in participation outcomes: for example, what may enhance the conduct of studies investigating participation in stroke survivors and longitudinal studies relating to intervention efficacy on participation? This information may contribute to evidence-based practice for the benefit of stroke survivors expressed in better engagement in real-life settings, meaningful participation, and better quality of life.

To summarize, participation is a critical factor that should be considered in intervention programs for stroke survivors. The various definitions of participation, the assessments, and the limited information about intervention efficacy in meanings of participation highlight that further studies should be performed worldwide and contribute to a coherent and consistent discussion targeted at achieving meaningful participation among stroke survivors.

Considering the challenges that stroke survivors face and that participation is a critical outcome measure of intervention, evaluations of participation should reflect meaningful participation—the subjective experience of the individual’s performance of activities [41], the enjoyment from participating in the activity [4244], the context where the participation takes place, and also the activities desired by the individual.

4.5. Implications for Stroke Rehabilitation

Participation as a main outcome measure of intervention should continue to receive special attention in rehabilitation programs for stroke survivors. For example, occupational therapy intervention programs for participation should include clinical reasoning, in which therapists profile the individual’s challenges, map problem priorities, and, together with the individual, set meaningful goals to enhance participation in real-life context to achieve the optimal rehabilitation experience. As such, therapists should combine self-reports with observations, use an elaborated point of view to understand factors that influence participation (including personal and environmental factors), and use conceptual models such as the PEOP alongside theoretical frameworks such as the ICF to accurately understand these complicated relationships [45] and focus interventions accordingly. Therapists must also consider the measurement tool used to assess participation. Different tools assess different domains and aspects of participation [24]. Consistent use of the most appropriate participation measure will assist to meet stroke survivor’s specific participation needs.

4.6. Implications for Research

In general, further studies are needed in order to (1) profile participation among stroke survivors as an outcome measure of recovery and/or intervention and (2) expand the body of knowledge about study designs, sensitive assessments, and time points of evaluations that may provide data about occupation-based interventions and their effectiveness in terms of participation and well-being.

More studies should be performed by disciplines where participation is the focus, such as occupational therapy, and we must extend beyond the emphasis found today on motor function and mobility; provide more data about the interaction between body function, performance, and participation; illuminate the interaction between personal and environmental factors; and consider contextual factors such as sociocultural background to find optimal strategies that meet patients’ specific needs and interests.

4.6.1. Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this review include using recommended and rigorous methods widely accepted in the conduct of scoping reviews and using broad search terms across a range of databases in order to maximize the likelihood of capturing the available research in the recovery of participation outcomes following a stroke. Limitations of this scoping review result from the variability in studies’ designs and methods, their definitions of participation, the relatively small number of studies that examine intervention impacts on participation in stroke survivors, and the multiple assessments, assessors, and interventions, which make it difficult to profile the effects of specific intervention tools and strategies on participation. Many studies focused on symptom management and on activities of daily living. Participation evaluation mainly referred to type of activities and did not use an elaborated perspective about where and with whom does the individual participate and how much they enjoy engaging in the activity. Further studies focussing on participation outcomes may contribute to filling this gap in research.

5. Conclusion

Stroke rehabilitation research and practice regarding stroke survivors should refer to participation as a major outcome measure of recovery and intervention effectiveness. Assessments should be used that include a broad perspective on participation domains. However, tools measuring participation must not combine the different aspects of participation into one overall score. This will assist us to better understand which interventions have a better impact on participation and recovery.

Further research should be performed to support occupation-based intervention effectiveness for providing stroke survivors optimal intervention, meaningful participation, and meaningful life.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Batya Engel-Yeger and Tamara Tse are joint first authors. Batya Engel-Yeger, Tamara Tse, and Leeanne M. Carey codesigned the study. Batya Engel-Yeger and Tamara Tse collected the data, analysed the data, interpreted the findings, and cowrote the paper. Naomi Josman, Carolyn Baum, and Leeanne M. Carey contributed to the interpretation of the results and review of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This scoping review was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Cognitive Rehabilitation-Collaborative Award (# 220020413) and the Neurorehabilitation Science Collaborative, a consortium of rehabilitation scientists and neuroscientists formed with the mission to use our collective knowledge and diverse science perspectives to advance the science of neurorehabilitation.

References

  1. V. L. Roger, A. S. Go, D. M. Lloyd-Jones et al., “Heart disease and stroke statistics--2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association,” Circulation, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. e18–e209, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. V. L. Feigin, M. H. Forouzanfar, R. Krishnamurthi et al., “Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990-2010: findings from the global burden of disease study 2010,” Lancet, vol. 383, no. 9913, pp. 245–255, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. G. A. Roth, M. H. Forouzanfar, A. E. Moran et al., “Demographic and epidemiologic drivers of global cardiovascular mortality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 14, pp. 1333–1341, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. Bergstrom, S. Guidetti, K. Tham, and G. Eriksson, “Association between satisfaction and participation in everyday occupations after stroke,” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 339–448, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. Desrosiers, “Muriel driver memorial lecture. Participation and occupation,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 195–203, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. B. Engel-Yeger and S. Hamed-Daher, “Comparing participation in out of school activities between children with visual impairments, children with hearing impairments and typical peers,” Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 3124–3132, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. M. Baum, “Fulfilling the promise: supporting participation in daily life,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 169–175, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. N. E. Andrew, M. Kilkenny, R. Naylor et al., “Understanding long-term unmet needs in Australian survivors of stroke,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 9, no. SA100, pp. 106–112, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. Jellema, R. van der Sande, S. van Hees, J. Zajec, E. M. Steultjens, and M. W. Nijhuis-van der Sanden, “Role of environmental factors on resuming valued activities poststroke: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative findings,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 991–1002.e1, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. Desrosiers, L. Demers, L. Robichaud et al., “Short-term changes in and predictors of participation of older adults after stroke following acute care or rehabilitation,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 288–297, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. Rochette, J. Desrosiers, G. Bravo, D. St-Cyr-Tribble, and A. Bourget, “Changes in participation after a mild stroke: quantitative and qualitative perspectives,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 59–68, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Spitzer, T. Tse, C. M. Baum, and L. M. Carey, “Mild impairment of cognition impacts on activity participation after stroke in a community-dwelling Australian cohort,” OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, vol. 31, Supplement 1, pp. S8–S15, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. K. Hamzat and A. Kobiri, “Effects of walking with a cane on balance and social participation among community-dwelling post-stroke individuals,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 121–126, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  14. N. Nasr, S. Mawson, P. Wright, J. Parker, and G. Mountain, “Exploring the experiences of living with stroke through narrative: stroke survivors’ perspectives,” Global Qualitative Nursing Research, vol. 3, article 233339361664651, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. J. Robison, R. Wiles, C. Ellis-Hill, K. McPherson, D. Hyndman, and A. Ashburn, “Resuming previously valued activities post-stroke: who or what helps?” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 31, no. 19, pp. 1555–1566, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. I. Wallenbert and H. Jonsson, “Waiting to get better: A dilemma regarding habits in daily occupations after stroke,” American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 218–224, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. C. Arntzen, T. Borg, and T. Hamran, “Long-term recovery trajectory after stroke: an ongoing negotiation between body, participation and self,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 37, no. 18, pp. 1626–1634, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. L. M. Carey, Stroke Rehabilitation: Insights from Neuroscience and Imaging, Oxford University Press, New York, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. R. Teasell, S. Mehta, S. Pereira et al., “Time to rethink long-term rehabilitation management of stroke patients,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 457–462, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. P. Dijkers, “Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. S5–S16, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. Rybski, Structural Relationship between Stroke Indicators from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Stroke Variables from the National Health Interview Survey, The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA, 2009.
  22. K. Salter, J. W. Jutai, R. Teasell, N. C. Foley, J. Bitensky, and M. Bayley, “Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 315–340, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. G. G. Whiteneck, “Issues affecting the selection of participation measurement in outcomes research and clinical trials,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. S54–S59, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. T. Tse, J. Douglas, P. Lentin, and L. Carey, “Measuring participation after stroke: a review of frequently used tools,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 177–192, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. K. Vessby and A. Kjellberg, “Participation in occupational therapy research: a literature review,” British Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 319–326, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. World Health Organization (WHO), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), WHO, Geneva, 2001.
  27. H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. Covidence Systematic Review Software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, June 2017, http://www.covidence.org/.
  29. J. D. Bass, C. M. Baum, and C. H. Christiansen, “Welcome to occupational therapy: performance, participation, and well-being, fourth edition,” in Occupational Therapy: Performance, Participation, and Well-Being, C. H. Christiansen, J. D. Bass, and C. M. Baum, Eds., pp. 1–9, Slack Incorporated, Thorofare, United States, 4th edition, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  30. O. Kossi, C. S. Batcho, T. Adoukonou, and J. L. Thonnard, “Functional recovery after stroke in Benin: a six-month follow-up study,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 671–675, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. A. Kjellberg, I. Kahlin, L. Haglund, and R. R. Taylor, “The myth of participation in occupational therapy: reconceptualizing a client-centred approach,” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 421–427, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. I. C. Eyssen, M. P. Steultjens, J. Dekker, and C. B. Terwee, “A systematic review of instruments assessing participation: challenges in defining participation,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 983–997, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. S. Magasi and M. W. Post, “A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. S17–S28, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. C. Brandenburg, L. Worrall, A. Rodriguez, and K. Bagraith, “Crosswalk of participation self-report measures for aphasia to the ICF: what content is being measured?” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 1113–1124, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. O. Kossi, F. Nindorera, C. S. Batcho, T. Adoukonou, M. Penta, and J. L. Thonnard, “Measuring participation after stroke in Africa: development of the participation measurement scale,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 652–659, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. W. Heinemann, S. Magasi, R. K. Bode et al., “Measuring enfranchisement: importance of and control over participation by people with disabilities,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 94, no. 11, pp. 2157–2165, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. A. M. V. Blomer, M. L. van Mierlo, J. M. Visser-Meily, C. M. van Heugten, and M. W. Post, “Does the frequency of participation change after stroke and is this change associated with the subjective experience of participation?” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 456–463, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. J. Hammel, S. Magasi, A. Heinemann et al., “Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: a qualitative insider perspective from people with disabilities,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 578–588, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. G. Kielhofner, Conceptual Foundations of Occupational Therapy, I. NetLibrary, Ed., F.A. Davis Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 3rd edition, 2004.
  40. M. Law, B. Cooper, S. Strong, D. Stewart, P. Rigby, and L. Letts, “The person-environment-occupation model: a transactive approach to occupational performance,” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 9–23, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. J. Hammel, S. Magasi, A. Heinemann, G. Whiteneck, J. Bogner, and E. Rodriguez, “What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 19, pp. 1445–1460, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. A. L. Bergstrom, G. Eriksson, E. Asaba, A. Erikson, and K. Tham, “Complex negotiations: the lived experience of enacting agency after a stroke,” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. M. Law, “Participation in the occupations of everyday life,” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 640–649, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. T. Mallinson and J. Hammel, “Measurement of participation: intersecting person, task, and environment,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. S29–S33, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. T. W. Kang and H. S. Cynn, “Progressive intervention strategy for the gait of sub-acute stroke patient using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health tool,” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 473–481, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. I. M. Altman, S. Swick, and J. F. Malec, “Effectiveness of home- and community-based rehabilitation in a large cohort of patients disabled by cerebrovascular accident: evidence of a dose-response relationship,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1837–1841, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. L. N. Awad, D. S. Reisman, T. M. Kesar, and S. A. Binder-Macleod, “Targeting paretic propulsion to improve poststroke walking function: a preliminary study,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 840–848, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. J. Beaudoin, B. Fournier, L. Julien-Caron et al., “Visuoperceptual deficits and participation in older adults after stroke,” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 260–266, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. A. S. Bertilsson, G. Eriksson, L. Ekstam et al., “A cluster randomized controlled trial of a client-centred, activities of daily living intervention for people with stroke: one year follow-up of caregivers,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 765–775, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. C. Brown, J. E. Fraser, E. L. Inness et al., “Does participation in standardized aerobic fitness training during inpatient stroke rehabilitation promote engagement in aerobic exercise after discharge? A cohort study,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 21, Supplement 1, pp. S42–S51, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. A. J. Butler, S. Blanton, V. T. Rowe, and S. L. Wolf, “Attempting to improve function and quality of life using the FTM protocol: case report,” Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 148–156, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. C. Y. Chou, Y. C. Ou, and T. R. Chiang, “Psychometric comparisons of four disease-specific health-related quality of life measures for stroke survivors,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 816–829, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. S. A. Combs-Miller, A. Kalpathi Parameswaran, D. Colburn et al., “Body weight-supported treadmill training vs. overground walking training for persons with chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 873–884, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. M. Demetrios, A. Gorelik, J. Louie, C. Brand, I. J. Baguley, and F. Khan, “Outcomes of ambulatory rehabilitation programmes following botulinum toxin for spasticity in adults with stroke,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 730–737, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. J. Desrosiers, L. Noreau, A. Rochette, D. Bourbonnais, G. Bravo, and A. Bourget, “Predictors of long-term participation after stroke,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 221–230, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. Desrosiers, L. Noreau, A. Rochette et al., “Effect of a home leisure education program after stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 1095–1100, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. J. Desrosiers, A. Rochette, L. Noreau, D. Bourbonnais, G. Bravo, and A. Bourget, “Long-term changes in participation after stroke,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 86–96, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. M. Egan, C. G. Davis, C. J. Dubouloz, D. Kessler, and L. A. Kubina, “Participation and well-being poststroke: evidence of reciprocal effects,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 262–268, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. M. Egan, L. A. Kubina, C. J. Dubouloz, D. Kessler, E. Kristjansson, and M. Sawada, “Very low neighbourhood income limits participation post stroke: preliminary evidence from a cohort study,” BMC Public Health, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 528, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. C. C. Evans, T. A. Hanke, D. Zielke, S. Keller, and K. Ruroede, “Monitoring community mobility with global positioning system technology after a stroke: a case study,” Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 68–78, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. U. B. Flansbjer, J. Lexell, and C. Brogardh, “Long-term benefits of progressive resistance training in chronic stroke: a 4-year follow-up,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 218–221, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. U. B. Flansbjer, M. Miller, D. Downham, and J. Lexell, “Progressive resistance training after stroke: effects on muscle strength, muscle tone, gait performance and perceived participation,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. S. Guidetti, M. Ranner, K. Tham, M. Andersson, C. Ytterberg, and L. Koch, “A “client-centred activities of daily living” intervention for persons with stroke: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 605–611, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. S. Guidetti, C. Ytterberg, L. Ekstam, U. Johansson, and G. Eriksson, “Changes in the impact of stroke between 3 and 12 months post-stroke, assessed with the Stroke Impact Scale,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 963–968, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. T. K. Hamzat and G. O. Peters, “Motor function and participation among Nigerian stroke survivors: 6-month follow-up study,” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 137–142, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. N. F. Horgan, M. O'Regan, C. J. Cunningham, and A. M. Finn, “Recovery after stroke: a 1-year profile,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 831–839, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. I. B. Ilse, H. Feys, L. de Wit, K. Putman, and W. de Weerdt, “Stroke caregivers’ strain: prevalence and determinants in the first six months after stroke,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 523–530, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. I. Baert, Y. Vanlandewijck, H. Feys, L. Vanhees, H. Beyens, and D. Daly, “Determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness at 3, 6 and 12 months poststroke,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 1835–1842, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. C. Jalayondeja, J. Kaewkungwal, P. E. Sullivan, S. Nidhinandana, S. Pichaiyongwongdee, and S. Jareinpituk, “Factors related to community participation by stroke victims six month post-stroke,” The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1005–1013, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  70. C. Jalayondeja, P. E. Sullivan, and S. Pichaiyongwongdee, “Six-month prospective study of fall risk factors identification in patients post-stroke,” Geriatrics & Gerontology International, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 778–785, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. P. M. Kluding, K. Dunning, M. W. O'Dell et al., “Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes,” Stroke, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1660–1669, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. J. A. Kootker, S. M. C. Rasquin, F. C. Lem, C. M. van Heugten, L. Fasotti, and A. C. H. Geurts, “Augmented cognitive behavioral therapy for poststroke depressive symptoms: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 687–694, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. N. G. Kutner, R. Zhang, A. J. Butler, S. L. Wolf, and J. L. Alberts, “Quality-of-life change associated with robotic-assisted therapy to improve hand motor function in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized clinical trial,” Physical Therapy, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 493–504, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. T. Kwok, J. H. Pan, R. Lo, and X. Song, “The influence of participation on health-related quality of life in stroke patients,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 21-22, pp. 1990–1996, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. Y. Laufer, J. M. Hausdorff, and H. Ring, “Effects of a foot drop neuroprosthesis on functional abilities, social participation, and gait velocity,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. S. Lennon, A. Ashburn, and D. Baxter, “Gait outcome following outpatient physiotherapy based on the Bobath concept in people post stroke,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 28, no. 13-14, pp. 873–881, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. M. F. Levin, O. Snir, D. G. Liebermann, H. Weingarden, and P. L. Weiss, “Virtual reality versus conventional treatment of reaching ability in chronic stroke: clinical feasibility study,” Neurology and Therapy, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. A. Lund, M. Michelet, L. Sandvik, T. Wyller, and U. Sveen, “A lifestyle intervention as supplement to a physical activity programme in rehabilitation after stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 502–512, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. R. Mayer and D. Reid, “Changes in autonomy and participation in seniors after stroke: a pilot study,” Activities, Adaptation, & Aging, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 49–70, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. N. E. Mayo, L. K. Fellows, S. C. Scott, J. Cameron, and S. Wood-Dauphinee, “A longitudinal view of apathy and its impact after stroke,” Stroke, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3299–3307, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. N. E. Mayo and S. Scott, “Evaluating a complex intervention with a single outcome may not be a good idea: an example from a randomised trial of stroke case management,” Age and Ageing, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 718–724, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. N. E. Mayo, M. J. MacKay-Lyons, S. C. Scott, C. Moriello, and J. Brophy, “A randomized trial of two home-based exercise programmes to improve functional walking post-stroke,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 659–671, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. V. S. Mercer, J. K. Freburger, S. H. Chang, and J. L. Purser, “Step test scores are related to measures of activity and participation in the first 6 months after stroke,” Physical Therapy, vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 1061–1071, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. S. M. Nijenhuis, G. B. Prange, F. Amirabdollahian et al., “Feasibility study into self-administered training at home using an arm and hand device with motivational gaming environment in chronic stroke,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 89, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. S. J. Page, P. Levine, and V. Hill, “Mental practice-triggered electrical stimulation in chronic, moderate, upper-extremity hemiparesis after stroke,” American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 6901290050p1–6901290050p8, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. M. Y. C. Pang, J. J. Eng, A. S. Dawson, H. A. McKay, and J. E. Harris, “A community-based fitness and mobility exercise program for older adults with chronic stroke: a randomized, controlled trial,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 1667–1674, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. C. J. Parker, J. R. F. Gladman, A. E. R. Drummond et al., “A multicentre randomized controlled trial of leisure therapy and conventional occupational therapy after stroke,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 42–52, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. J. Penney, M. J. MacKay-Lyons, and A. McDonald, “Evidence-based stroke rehabilitation: case analysis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework,” Physiotherapy Canada, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 22–36, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  89. S. Pundik, J. Holcomb, J. McCabe, and J. J. Daly, “Enhanced life-role participation in response to comprehensive gait training in chronic-stroke survivors,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 34, no. 18, pp. 1535–1539, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. P. Raghavan, D. Geller, N. Guerrero et al., “Music upper limb therapy-integrated: an enriched collaborative approach for stroke rehabilitation,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 498, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. A. Rochette, N. Korner-Bitensky, D. Bishop et al., “The YOU CALL-WE CALL randomized clinical trial: impact of a multimodal support intervention after a mild stroke,” Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 674–679, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. C. Sabariego, A. E. Barrera, S. Neubert, M. Stier-Jarmer, C. Bostan, and A. Cieza, “Evaluation of an ICF-based patient education programme for stroke patients: a randomized, single-blinded, controlled, multicentre trial of the effects on self-efficacy, life satisfaction and functioning,” British Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 707–728, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. K. Sandberg, M. Kleist, L. Falk, and P. Enthoven, “Effects of twice-weekly intense aerobic exercise in early subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 1244–1253, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. A. P. C. Segura, S. V. Fontes, M. M. Fukujima, and S. L. de Andrade Matas, “The impact evaluation of physical therapy on the quality of life of cerebrovascular stroke patients,” International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 243–246, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. A. Singam, C. Ytterberg, K. Tham, and L. von Koch, “Participation in complex and social everyday activities six years after stroke: predictors for return to pre-stroke level,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 12, article e0144344, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. M. Stuart, F. Benvenuti, R. Macko et al., “Community-based adaptive physical activity program for chronic stroke: feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the Empoli model,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 726–734, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. S. Studenski, P. W. Duncan, S. Perera, D. Reker, S. M. Lai, and L. Richards, “Daily functioning and quality of life in a randomized controlled trial of therapeutic exercise for subacute stroke survivors,” Stroke, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1764–1770, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. V. Teoh, J. Sims, and J. Milgrom, “Psychosocial predictors of quality of life in a sample of community-dwelling stroke survivors: a longitudinal study,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 157–166, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. N. S. Tielemans, J. M. A. Visser-Meily, V. P. M. Schepers et al., “Effectiveness of the Restore4Stroke self-management intervention “Plan ahead!”: a randomized controlled trial in stroke patients and partners,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 901–909, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. M. L. van Mierlo, C. M. van Heugten, M. W. Post, T. R. Hajos, L. J. Kappelle, and J. M. Visser-Meily, “Quality of life during the first two years post stroke: the Restore4Stroke cohort study,” Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 41, no. 1-2, pp. 19–26, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. G. O. Vincent-Onabajo, T. K. Hamzat, and M. O. Owolabi, “Are there gender differences in longitudinal patterns of functioning in Nigerian stroke survivors during the first year after stroke?” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 297–304, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. C. Viscogliosi, S. Belleville, J. Desrosiers, C. D. Caron, B. Ska, and BRAD Group, “Participation after a stroke: changes over time as a function of cognitive deficits,” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 336–343, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. L. E. Worrall, K. Hudson, A. Khan, B. Ryan, and N. Simmons-Mackie, “Determinants of living well with aphasia in the first year poststroke: a prospective cohort study,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 235–240, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. S. Y. Yang and K. H. Kong, “Level and predictors of participation in patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation,” Singapore Medical Journal, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 564–568, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus