Stroke specific measurement tools used to assess health related quality of life in young adults after ischemic stroke

Česká verze

Authors: E. Gurková ¹; D. Šaňák ²; D. Bartoníčková ¹; Š. Šaňáková ¹; L. Štureková ¹
Authors place of work: Ústav ošetřovatelství, Fakulta zdravotnických věd, UP, Olomouc ¹; Komplexní cerebrovaskulární centrum, Neurologická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc ²
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2023; 86(1): 31-38
Category: Přehledný referát
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccsnn202331

Summary

Introduction: Currently, incidence, prevalence and hospitalizations for ischemic stroke (IS) are increasing in patients under 65 years of age. This leads to a greater number of individuals living a relatively long period of their active life with sequels after IS. This results in a growing need to reliably investigate and evaluate impacts of IS on the quality of life in patients under 65 years of age. Aim: The aim of our study was to identify relevant specific tools for the evaluation of quality of life and long-term sequels in IS patients under 65 years of age. Methods: The PRISMA and Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping review methods were used for the identification (searching and sorting) of relevant evaluation tools. The searching was performed in the following electronic databases: Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, Scopus and ProQuest Science Database using key words and Boolean operators. Results: Out of 1,198 studies found in the electronic databases, the following five relevant tools specific for IS: Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (SS-QoL), Stroke Impact scale 3.0 (SIS 3.0), Mapping Young persons with Stroke (MYS), Young Stroke Questionnaire (YSQ), and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (NeuroQoL), and three generic instruments: Short Form Health Survey with 36 items (SF 36), World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Version (WHOQOL BREF) and EQ-5D, were identified as they all were used for the evaluation in patients under 65 years of age. YSQ was the only tool validated for young IS patients and the reliability for the target group of young patients was only assessed in SS-QoL. Psychometric parameters of identified and evaluated tools differed substantially. The strongest evidence for using these in young patients to evaluate the quality of life was found for the tool YSQ. Conclusion: Using available specific tools for the objective evaluation of the quality of life after IS in patients under 65 years of age still remains very limited. The strongest evidence for its use to evaluate the quality of life was found for the tool YSQ.

Keywords:

ischemic stroke – health-related quality of life – young adult – psychosocial consequences

Zdroje

1. Bednařík J, Tomek A, Bar M et al. Ischemická cévní mozková příhoda nebo tranzitorní ischemická ataka nekardioembolické etiologie a jejich sekundární prevence. Adaptovaný klinicky doporučený postup. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //kdp.uzis.cz/res/guideline/11-aterotromboticka-ischemicka-cmp-nebo-tia-jejich-sekundarni-prevence-final.pdf.

2. Bryndziar T, Šedová P, Mikulík R. Incidence cévní mozkové příhody v Evropě – systematická review. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113 (2): 180–189. doi: 10.14735/amcsnn 2017180.

3. Sedova P, Brown RD Jr, Zvolsky M et al. Validation of stroke diagnosis in the National Registry of Hospitalized Patients in the Czech Republic. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2015; 24 (9): 2032–2038. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.04.019.

4. Yahya T, Jilani MH, Khan SU et al. Stroke in young adults: current trends, opportunities for prevention and pathways forward. Am J Prev Cardiol 2020; 3: 100085. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100085.

5. Ekker M, Boot EM, Singhal AB et al. Epidemiology, aetiology, and management of ischaemic stroke in young adults. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17 (9): 790–801. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422 (18) 30233-3.

6. Feigin VL, Norrving B, Mensah GA. Global burden of stroke. Circ Res 2017; 120 (3): 439–448. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308413.

7. Young Stroke. Defining young stroke. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //youngstroke.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DefiningYoungStroke.pdf.

8. Philp I, Brainin M, Walker MF et al. Development of a poststroke checklist to standardize follow-up care for stroke survivors. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 22 (7): e173–e180. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.10.016.

9. Im HW, Kim WS, Kim S et al. Prevalence of worsening problems using post-stroke checklist and associations with quality of life in patients with stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2020; 29 (12): 105406. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105406.

10. Holloway A, Chandler C, Aviles Reinso L et al. Young Adults Rehabilitation Needs and Experiences following Stroke (YARNS): a review of digital accounts to inform the development of age-appropriate support and rehabilitation. J Adv Nurs 2022; 78 (3): 869–882. doi: 10.1111/jan.15076.

11. Maaijwee NA, Arntz RM, Rutten-Jacobs LC et al. Post-stroke fatigue and its association with poor functional outcome after stroke in young adults. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015; 86 (10): 1120–1126. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-308784.

12. Pinter D, Enzinger C, Gattringer T et al. Prevalence and short-term changes of cognitive dysfunction in young ischaemic stroke patients. Eur J Neurol 2019; 26 (5): 727–732. doi: 10.1111/ene.13879.

13. Schaapsmeerders P, Maaijwee NA, van Dijk EJ et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after first-ever ischemic stroke in young adults. Stroke 2013; 44 (6): 1621–1628. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000792.

14. Synhaeve NE, Schaapsmeerders P, Arntz RM et al. Cognitive performance and poor long-term functional outcome after young stroke. Neurology 2015; 85 (9): 776–782. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001882.

15. Yoon S, Kim HY, Kim SR. A prediction model of health-related quality of life in young adult patients with stroke. J Clin Nurs 2021; 30 (13–14): 2023–2035. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15755.

16. Kapoor A, Si K, Yu AYX et al. Younger age and depressive symptoms predict high risk of generalized anxiety after stroke and transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2019; 50 (9): 2359–2363. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025464.

17. Maaijwee NA, Tendolkar I, Rutten-Jacobs LC et al. Long-term depressive symptoms and anxiety after transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke in young adults. Eur J Neurol 2016; 23 (8): 1262–1268. doi: 10.1111/ ene.13009.

18. Tanislav C, Kropp P, Grittner U et al. Clinically relevant depressive symptoms in young stroke patients – results of the sifap1 study. Neuroepidemiology 2015; 44 (1): 30–38. doi: 10.1159/000371389.

19. Bugnicourt JM, Hamy O, Canaple S et al. Impaired sexual activity in young ischaemic stroke patients: an observational study. Eur J Neurol 2014; 21 (1): 140–146. doi: 10.1111/ene.12277.

20. Aarnio K, Rodríguez-Pardo J, Siegerink B et al. Return to work after ischemic stroke in young adults: a registry-based follow-up study. Neurology 2018; 91 (20): e1909–e1917. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006510.

21. Westerlind E, Persson HC, Eriksson M et al. Return to work after stroke: a Swedish nationwide registry-based study. Acta Neurol Scand 2020; 141 (1): 56–64. doi: 10.1111/ane.13180.

22. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18 (10): 2119–2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.

23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (7): 737–745. doi: 10.1016/ j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.

24. Kim JS, Choi-Kwon S, Kwon SU et al. Factors affecting the quality of life after ischemic stroke: young versus old patients. J Clin Neurol 2005; 1 (1): 59–68. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2005.1.1.59.

25. Palmcrantz S, Holmqvist LW, Sommerfeld DK et al. Differences between younger and older individuals in their use of care and rehabilitation but not in self-perceived global recovery 1year after stroke. J Neurol Sci 2012; 321 (1–2): 29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2012.07.024.

26. Palmcrantz S, Widén Holmqvist L, Sommerfeld DK. Young individuals with stroke: a cross sectional study of long-term disability associated with self-rated global health. BMC Neurol 2014; 14: 20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-14-20.

27. Lisabeth LD, Baek J, Morgenstern LB et al. Prognosis of midlife stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 27 (5): 1153–1159. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.11.029.

28. Kodumuri N, Edmunds A, Seidel A et al. Development and initial validation of a patient-centered stroke outcome measure in young stroke survivors. Eur J Neurol 2021; 28 (12): 4069–4077. doi: 10.1111/ene.15052.

29. Rhudy LM, Wells-Pittman J, Flemming KD. Psychosocial sequelae of stroke in working-age adults: a pilot study. J Neurosci Nurs 2020; 52 (4): 192–199. doi: 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000523.

30. Naess H, Waje-Andreassen U, Thomassen L et al. Health-related quality of life among young adults with ischemic stroke on long-term follow-up. Stroke 2006; 37 (5): 1232–1236. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000217652.42273.02.

31. Naess H, Nyland H. Poor health-related quality of life is associated with long-term mortality in young adults with cerebral infarction. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 22 (7): e79–e83. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.06.010.

32. de Bruijn MA, Synhaeve NE, van Rijsbergen MW et al. Quality of life after young ischemic stroke of mild severity is mainly influenced by psychological factors. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2015; 24 (10): 2183–2188. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.04.040.

33. Westerlind E, Persson HC, Sunnerhagen KS. Return to work after a stroke in working age persons; a six-year follow up. PLoS One 2017; 12 (1): e0169759. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169759.

34. Lannin NA, Anderson CS, Kim J et al. Treatment and outcomes of working aged adults with stroke: results from a National Prospective Registry. Neuroepidemiology 2017; 49 (3–4): 113–120. doi: 10.1159/000484141.

35. Schneider S, Taba N, Saapar M et al. Determinants of long-term health-related quality of life in young ischemic stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2021; 30 (2): 105499. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105499.

36. Cameron LJ, Wales K, Casey A et al. Self-reported quality of life following stroke: a systematic review of instruments with a focus on their psychometric properties. Qual Life Res 2022; 31 (2): 329–342. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02944-9.

37. Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A et al. Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke 2000; 31 (8): 2004–2010. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.8.2004.

38. Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD. A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (2): 155–185. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200119020-00004.

39. Vellone E, Savini S, Fida R et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2015; 30 (3): 229–241. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000145.

40. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY et al. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res 2010; 19 (3): 435–443. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9597-5.

41. Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (10): 1383–1396. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120492.

42. Gurková E, Šaňák D, Šáteková L et al. Validace dotazníku pro hodnocení dopadu cévní mozkové příhody – česká verze Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2022; 85 (4): 287–295. doi: 10.48095/cccsnn2022287.

43. Palmcrantz SM, Holmqvist LW, Sommerfeld DK. Development, validity and reliability of a postal questionnaire assessing health states relevant to young persons with stroke in Sweden. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33 (13–14): 1179–1185. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.524273.