Quality of rehabilitation care in Portuguese stroke units: findings from 2017–2018 and 2023 national cross‑sectional surveys

 Since you're measuring 'care' NOT RECOVERY; you're COMPLETELY FUCKING INCOMPETENT AND DESERVE TO BE KEEL HAULED!

There are no excuses for such incompetent crapola! I'd have you all fired!

Quality of rehabilitation care in Portuguese stroke units: findings from 2017–2018 and 2023 national cross‑sectional surveys

• oana Teles SarmentoDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Unidade Local de Saúde do Médio Ave, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal
• Ana AlvesPhysical and Rehabilitation Clinic of S. Nicolau, Porto, Portugal
• Paulo Castro-ChavesRISE-Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Department of Internal Medicine, Unidade Local de Saúde de São João, Porto, Portugal
• Bárbara M. CruzDepartment of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Santo António, Porto, Portugal
• Cristina JácomeRISE-Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v58.44855

Keywords: 

Guideline Adherence, Health Services Research;, Quality Indicators, Rehabilitation, Stroke

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate adherence to stroke rehabilitation guidelines in Portuguese stroke units from the physicians’ perspective and examine changes over 6 years.

Design: A national cross-sectional survey across 2 time periods (2017–2018 and 2023).

Methods: Stroke units recognized by the Portuguese Stroke Society were invited to participate: 27 in 2017–2018 and 35 in 2023. A structured questionnaire, aligned with national and international guidelines, assessed 5 domains: team composition, care coordination, early assessment and planning, dysfunction assessments, and post-discharge planning.

Results: Response rates were 93% (n = 25) and 80% (n = 28). Most units (> 75%) had a physiatrist, physiotherapist, speech therapist, rehabilitation nurse, and social worker; only 20% had the full recommended team. Weekly stroke unit meetings were stable (88–89%), while rehabilitation team meetings increased markedly between the 2 periods (20% vs 72%). Rehabilitation started earlier on weekdays (89% vs 79%) than at weekends (68% vs 57%). Dysphagia screening was common (96% vs 89%), but neurogenic bladder assessment was rare (< 8%). The Modified Rankin Scale and Barthel Index were consistently used. Post-discharge planning remained high (92% vs 89%), with improved coordination between teams (48% vs 89%).

Conclusion: Portuguese Stroke Units demonstrated moderate-to-high adherence to rehabilitation guidelines, with progress in teamwork communication and care coordination, although important gaps remain.

Downloads

References

Krishnamurthi RV, Ikeda T, Feigin VL. Global, regional and country-specific burden of ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Neuroepidemiology 2020; 54: 171–179.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000506396 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000506396

Wafa HA, Wolfe CDA, Emmett E, Roth GA, Johnson CO, Wang Y. Burden of stroke in Europe: thirty-year projections of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years. Stroke 2020; 51: 2418–2427.

https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.029606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029606

Foerch C, Schaller-Paule MA, Steinmetz H, Misselwitz B, Bohmann FO. Reduction of ischemic stroke associated disability in the population: a state-wide stroke registry analysis over a decade. J Clin Med 2022; 11.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236942

Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020; 396: 1204–1222.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30925-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9

Hebert D, Lindsay MP, McIntyre A, Kirton A, Rumney PG, Bagg S, et al. Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Stroke rehabilitation practice guidelines, update 2015. Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 459–484.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016643553 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016643553

Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47: e98–e169.

https://doi.org/10.1161/str.0000000000000098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000098

Kwakkel G, Stinear C, Essers B, Munoz-Novoa M, Branscheidt M, Cabanas-Valdés R, et al. Motor rehabilitation after stroke: European Stroke Organisation (ESO) consensus-based definition and guiding framework. Eur Stroke J 2023; 8: 880–894.

https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873231191304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873231191304

Miura S, Miyata R, Matsumoto S, Higashi T, Wakisaka Y, Ago T, et al. Quality management program of stroke rehabilitation using adherence to guidelines: a nationwide initiative in Japan. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2019; 28: 2434–2441.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.06.028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.06.028

European Stroke Organisation. Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008; 25: 457–507.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000131083 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000131083

Waje-Andreassen U, Nabavi DG, Engelter ST, Dippel DW, Jenkinson D, Skoda O, et al. European Stroke Organisation certification of stroke units and stroke centres. Eur Stroke J 2018; 3: 220–226.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987318778971 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987318778971

Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, Adeoye OM, Bambakidis NC, Becker K, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2019; 50: e344–e418.

https://doi.org/10.1161/str.0000000000000211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000211

Heran M, Lindsay P, Gubitz G, Yu A, Ganesh A, Lund R, et al. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Acute Stroke Management, 7(th) Edition Practice Guidelines Update, 2022. Can J Neurol Sci 2024; 51: 1–31.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2022.344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2022.344

Boulanger JM, Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Smith EE, Stotts G, Foley N, et al. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations for Acute Stroke Management: Prehospital, Emergency Department, and Acute Inpatient Stroke Care, 6th Edition, Update 2018. Int J Stroke 2018; 13: 949–984.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018786616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018786616

Norrving B, Bray BD, Asplund K, Heuschmann P, Langhorne P, Rudd AG, et al. Cross-national key performance measures of the quality of acute stroke care in Western Europe. Stroke 2015; 46: 2891–2895.

https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.115.008811 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008811

Quinn TJ, Paolucci S, Sunnerhagen KS, Sivenius J, Walker MF, Toni D, et al. Evidence-based stroke rehabilitation: an expanded guidance document from the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 99–111.

https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0301

Teasell R, Salbach NM, Foley N, Mountain A, Cameron JI, Jong A, et al. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Community Participation following Stroke. Part One: Rehabilitation and Recovery Following Stroke; 6th Edition Update 2019. Int J Stroke 2020; 15: 763–788.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493019897843 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493019897843

Direção Geral da Saúde. Norma de Orientação Clínica: Acidente Vascular Cerebral: Prescrição de Medicina Física e de Reabilitação [Clinical Practice Guideline: Stroke: Prescription of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation]; 2011. Available from: https://normas.dgs.min-saude.pt/2011/12/27/acidente-vascular-cerebral-prescricao-de-medicina-fisica-e-de-reabilitacao/

Norrving B, Barrick J, Davalos A, Dichgans M, Cordonnier C, Guekht A, et al. Action Plan for Stroke in Europe 2018–2030. Eur Stroke J 2018; 3: 309–336.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987318808719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987318808719

Hubbard IJ, Harris D, Kilkenny MF, Faux SG, Pollack MR, Cadilhac DA. Adherence to clinical guidelines improves patient outcomes in Australian audit of stroke rehabilitation practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 965–971.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.011

Urimubenshi G, Langhorne P, Cadilhac DA, Kagwiza JN, Wu O. Association between patient outcomes and key performance indicators of stroke care quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Stroke J 2017; 2: 287–307.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987317735426 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987317735426

Haas K, Rücker V, Hermanek P, Misselwitz B, Berger K, Seidel G, et al. Association between adherence to quality indicators and 7-day in-hospital mortality after acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2020; 51: 3664–3672.

https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.029968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029968

Direcção Geral da Saúde. Norma de Orientação Clínica: Via Verde do Acidente Vascular Cerebral no Adulto [Clinical Practice Guideline: Stroke Code for Adults]; 2017. Available from: https://nocs.pt/via-verde-do-acidente-vascular-cerebral-no-adulto/

Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13: S31–s34.

https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18

Sociedade Portuguesa do Acidente Vascular Cerebral. Caracterização das Unidades de AVC 2021 [Characterization of Stroke Units 2021]; 2022. Available from: https://spavc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Estudo-Caraterizacao-UAVC-1.pdf

Sociedade Portuguesa do Acidente Vascular Cerebral. Guia das Unidades de AVC [Stroke Unit Guide]: SPAVC; 2017. Available from: https://spavc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GUIA-AVC_site_28_11_17.pdf

Clarke DJ, Forster A. Improving post-stroke recovery: the role of the multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc 2015; 8: 433–442.

https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.S68764 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S68764

Korompoki E, Ntaios G, Tountopoulou A, Mavraganis G, Tsampalas E, Kalliontzakis I, et al. Quality indicators and clinical outcomes of acute stroke: results from a prospective multicenter registry in Greece (SUN4P). J Clin Med 2024; 13: 917.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13030917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13030917

Alonso de Leciñana M, Morales A, Martínez-Zabaleta M, Ayo-Martín Ó, Lizán L, Castellanos M. Characteristics of stroke units and stroke teams in Spain in 2018. Pre2Ictus project. Neurologia (Engl Ed) 2023; 38: 173–180.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.03.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.03.001

Rac VE, Sahakyan Y, Fan I, Ieraci L, Hall R, Kelloway L, et al. The characteristics of stroke units in Ontario: a pan-provincial survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17: 154.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2099-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2099-1

King’s College London for Stroke Alliance For Europe. The burden of stroke in Europe Report 2017. Available from: https://www.safestroke.eu/burden-of-stroke/

Tyson SF, Burton L, McGovern A. Multi-disciplinary team meetings in stroke rehabilitation: an observation study and conceptual framework. Clin Rehabil 2014; 28: 1237–1247.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215514535942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215514535942

Kushner DS, Strasser DC. Stroke inpatient rehabilitation team conferences: leadership and structure improve patient outcomes. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2020; 29: 104622.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104622 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104622

Bray BD, Cloud GC, James MA, Hemingway H, Paley L, Stewart K, et al. Weekly variation in health-care quality by day and time of admission: a nationwide, registry-based, prospective cohort study of acute stroke care. Lancet 2016; 388: 170–177.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30443-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30443-3

Ruiz M, Bottle A, Aylin PP. The Global Comparators project: international comparison of 30-day in-hospital mortality by day of the week. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24: 492–504.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003467 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003467

Australian Stroke Foundation. The National Stroke Audit – Acute Services 2023 Report 2023. Available from: www.informme.org.au/stroke-data

Gu HQ, Yang X, Wang CJ, Zhao XQ, Wang YL, Liu LP, et al. Clinical characteristics, management, and in-hospital outcomes in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack in China. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4: e2120745.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20745

Lens C, Coeckelberghs E, Seys D, Demeestere J, Weltens C, Vanhaecht K, et al. Variation in stroke care at the hospital level: a cross-sectional multicenter study. Front Neurol 2022; 13: 1004901.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1004901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1004901

Stroke Foundation. Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke; 2017. Available ffrom: https://strokefoundation.org.au/what-we-do/for-health-professionals/clinical-guidelines

Sanchez-Gavilan E, Montiel E, Baladas M, Lallanas S, Aurin E, Watson C, et al. Added value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after an acute stroke and early predictors of 90 days PROMs. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2022; 6: 66.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00472-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00472-9

Cornelis C, den Hartog SJ, Bastemeijer CM, Roozenbeek B, Nederkoorn PJ, Van den Berg-Vos RM. Patient-reported experience measures in stroke care: a systematic review. Stroke 2021; 52: 2432–2435.

https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.034028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.034028

Mikulik R, Neto G, Sedani R, Ameriso SF, Mammadova N, Marchenko S, et al. Differences in acute ischemic stroke treatment: a cross-sectional study from international Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q). Int J Stroke 2026; 21: 188–199.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930251364082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930251364082

Fasugba O, Sedani R, Mikulik R, Dale S, Vařecha M, Coughlan K, et al. How registry data are used to inform activities for stroke care quality improvement across 55 countries: a cross-sectional survey of Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) hospitals. Eur J Neurol 2024; 31: e16024.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.16024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.16024

The MIND Diet Slows the Physical Aging of the Brain Itself by Super Age

 

Ask your competent? doctor for EXACT DIET PROTOCOLS! None of this MIND diet guidelines; they have NO specifics! You need SPECIFICS!

How the hell else is your incompetent? doctor recovering your 5 lost years of brain cognition due to your stroke?

Do you prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING? Your choice; let them be incompetent or demand action!

The MIND Diet Slows the Physical Aging of the Brain Itself

Scientists discover a hidden system that turns brown fat into a calorie burner

My doctor obviously knew nothing about weight gain post stroke. He didn't reference body metabolism slowing down after age 50 and my limited exercise ability which I used to do to excess allowing me to eat as I wanted. This incompetence led me to a 30 lb. weight gain which I'm still working to conquer.  

Will your competent? doctor and hospital at least get research going that delivers EXACT PROTOCOLs TO INITIATE THIS? 

Do you prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING? Your choice; let them be incompetent or demand action!

 Scientists discover a hidden system that turns brown fat into a calorie burner

Stroke rehab goes high-tech: UP study reveals robotic therapy may restore lost grip

 Come back when you finish the job correctly! Will restore using these EXACT PROTOCOLS! 'May' is not a valid result!

What will you do about those like me that have dead brain there and no longer have any signals coming thru? Do you actually have any brains at all that might be useful in solving stroke to 100% recovery?

Stroke rehab goes high-tech: UP study reveals robotic therapy may restore lost grip

MARCH 29, 2026 — The University of the Philippines has just dropped a study that could change how we look at stroke recovery in the country. Researchers Micah Angelo Bacani and Manuel Ramos Jr. from UP Diliman’s Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute tested a robotic hand orthosis powered by surface electromyography (sEMG) signals — and achieved an impressive 86% response accuracy rate. In plain language: the device listens to muscle signals from the arm and translates them into movement, giving stroke survivors a shot at regaining control of their grip.

Why does this matter? Stroke remains one of the leading causes of disability in the Philippines. Many survivors struggle with long-term loss of hand function, making everyday tasks — from holding a spoon to signing a document — frustratingly difficult. 

Traditional rehab often relies on repetitive, passive exercises. But this study argues that recovery is stronger when patients actively participate, engaging their neurological pathways rather than just following preset motions. 

That’s where robotics step in: machines that respond to the patient’s own muscle signals, not just programmed routines.

The researchers explained, “Using surface electromyography (sEMG) signals from the arm, the recovering stroke patient can control the robotic assistive device for rehabilitation. This is the myoelectric hand orthosis.” 

Additionally, the study found a direct, proportional relationship between the patient’s intended force and the device’s response. In other words, the harder the patient tries, the stronger the orthosis reacts.

Now, that’s not just science — it’s empowerment. Imagine the psychological boost of seeing your effort instantly translated into movement, instead of waiting months for uncertain progress.

Of course, this raises bigger questions for us. Will our healthcare system embrace robotic rehab, or will it remain locked in academic journals? Can public hospitals afford such technology, or will it be another innovation reserved for private clinics and the wealthy? And most importantly, will patients trust machines to help them heal?This study is a reminder that science is racing ahead, but policy and accessibility often lag behind. If robotics can truly help stroke survivors reclaim their independence, then the challenge is no longer technological — it’s social, economic, and political.

When machines can help us heal, will the Philippines let technology be a lifeline for the many, or a luxury for the few?

Poststroke Fatigue: An Overlooked Barrier to Functional Recovery

 Oh for fucks sake; stop writing this crapola and just solve fatigue! Oh, you don't have the brainpower to do that simple task?  Then go back to playing in your sandbox and let the adults work at it!

Let's see how long everyone in stroke has been incompetent at this problem!

• post stroke fatigue (58 posts to January 2018)

At least half of all stroke survivors experience fatigue Known since March 2017

Or is it 70%? Known since March 2015.

Or is it 40%? Known since September 2017.

I'd fire everyone involved with this lazy crapola!

Will your incompetent doctor, hospital and board of directors fail to deliver the action needed to solve this problem? NOT DOING SO IS COMPLETE FUCKING INCOMPETENCE!

Poststroke Fatigue: An Overlooked Barrier to Functional Recovery

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1468-3504 Stefan PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0054-3908 Neha Lodha PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-515X neha.lodha@colostate.edu, and Agostina Casamento‐Moran PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6642-4469 agoscasamento@ufl.edu Author Info & Affiliations Journal of the American Heart Association New online https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.046895 >View Options >Poststroke fatigue (PSF) is one of the most prevalent and debilitating consequences of a stroke,^1,2 yet it remains underprioritized in both clinical care and scientific investigations. Broadly, PSF is defined as a persistent subjective feeling of tiredness, lack of energy, low motivation, and difficulty concentrating that is disproportionate to exertion and not relieved by rest. PSF affects nearly 3 out of 4 individuals with stroke,^4,1

Despite the significance of PSF, poststroke rehabilitation strategies continue to focus on conspicuous impairments, such as sensory, motor, cognitive, and speech deficits, while overlooking fatigue and its detrimental impact on recovery.5, 6 In this commentary, we assert that PSF must be recognized and prioritized as a core component of poststroke rehabilitation. To build this argument, we highlight emerging evidence on the impact of PSF on recovery, examine the reasons for its continued neglect, and advocate for its integration into rehabilitation frameworks as a crucial step toward improving functional recovery after stroke.

PSF HINDERS FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AND RECOVERY AFTER STROKE

PSF is a multidimensional phenomenon2 that significantly impairs functional recovery after stroke.7 PSF reduces patient engagement in rehabilitation, which is essential for effective recovery.8 Individuals experiencing PSF are more likely to miss therapy sessions, exhibit reduced ability to actively participate in rehabilitation protocols,9 and report insufficient energy to complete home‐based exercises.10 PSF also increases the need for prolonged rest10 and reduces participation in cognitively, emotionally, or physically demanding tasks.11 As a result, PSF limits workforce reintegration,12 restricts social participation, and directly stalls functional gains, often leading to more frequent and prolonged hospitalizations.7

Even when individuals participate in rehabilitation, PSF affects physical and cognitive domains essential to the rehabilitation process.13 Fatigue impairs motor control by reducing movement accuracy, increasing force variability, and slowing reaction time.13, 14, 15, 16 For example, Hyngstrom et al. found that PSF diminishes hip flexor strength and gait stability,14 and other studies link PSF to impaired lower limb control15 and slower movement speed.13 These motor deficits translate into greater difficulty performing activities of daily living,17 which in turn hinder recovery and quality of life. Further, PSF can interfere with motor learning,11 the fundamental process underlying neurorehabilitation. Stroke rehabilitation relies on repeated, high‐quality practice to drive motor skill acquisition and memory consolidation.18 However, Branscheidt et al. demonstrated that physical fatigue impairs both processes in healthy adults, raising serious concerns about the impact of fatigue in clinical populations.11 Although the effect of PSF on motor learning after stroke has yet to be fully investigated, it is plausible that fatigue directly impairs learning or indirectly reduces training efficiency, thus diminishing functional recovery after stroke. Lastly, PSF reduces attention, planning, and capacity to retain the information, making it difficult to perform cognitive tasks, but also to integrate feedback and error monitoring during rehabilitation.19, 20

Taken together, PSF undermines recovery by limiting rehabilitation engagement and impairing both physical and cognitive function. Yet despite its profound impact, fatigue remains overlooked and underprioritized in rehabilitation. In the next section, we examine why this may be the case.

WHY PSF REMAINS UNDERPRIORITIZED IN STROKE REHABILITATION?

We argue that PSF remains underrecognized and undertreated in stroke rehabilitation due to its broad definition21 and poor operationalization,22, 23 its misinterpretation as a mere consequence of other psychiatric conditions2, 24 or the recovery process,2, 24 and the stigmatization of fatigue within rehabilitation settings.25

How we define and conceptualize fatigue remains a central obstacle to addressing it effectively. Clinically, PSF is evaluated exclusively via self‐reported measures that combine all aspects of fatigue into a single score23, 26; whereas scientifically, different operationalizations of fatigue are used interchangeably.3, 6 We posit that this lack of conceptual clarity leads to inconsistent results that prevent us from understanding the prevalence, behavioral presentation, mechanisms, and functional consequences of fatigue, ultimately hindering the development of effective clinical interventions.27, 28

In addition, fatigue is commonly interpreted as an inevitable consequence of the rehabilitation process itself10 or a simple byproduct of psychiatric conditions,29 such as depression, poor sleep, or anxiety. Yet accumulating evidence suggests that fatigue can be a distinct causal factor6 that independently contributes to poor functional performance and impairs recovery.3, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 31, 32 For example, in major depressive disorders, fatigue is among the most reported symptoms,30 often precedes the onset of depressive episodes,31 and strongly predicts relapses after treatment.33 A similar scenario may hold for PSF, which could act as a prodromal symptom and an independent driver of functional decline. Supporting this, Ingles et al. found that fatigue impaired mobility after stroke, even after controlling for depression.32

Finally, the neglect of fatigue is compounded by the siloed nature of clinical care and scientific inquiry, where PSF is rarely integrated into rehabilitation frameworks.27 Historically, rehabilitation models have prioritized hemiparesis, cognitive decline, or aphasia. In contrast, fatigue is dismissed as a vague, subjective, and secondary complaint that should be endured rather than treated.34 This perception has led to stigma, making it difficult for patients to convey the severity of their fatigue and for clinicians to view it as anything other than inevitable or peripheral to recovery.10 Similarly, in research settings, fatigue is often dismissed as noise or a confound to be controlled for. Consequently, fatigue research has been segregated from traditional rehabilitation sciences, reinforcing the false belief that fatigue is unmeasurable, untreatable, and unworthy of investigation.3, 6

Taken together, these barriers contribute to a limited understanding of PSF and undermine efforts to address it as a distinct and treatable symptom of stroke survivors. To break this cycle, clinicians and researchers must redefine PSF as a core barrier to recovery that warrants clinical and scientific attention. Importantly, doing so requires greater conceptual clarity. Therefore, we must first establish what PSF is and, importantly, what it is not, to distinguish it from other comorbidities, identify its unique features, and target it more effectively in both clinical practice and research.

PROPOSED FEATURE‐BASED FRAMEWORK TO CONCEPTUALIZE PSF

To move beyond the historical neglect of PSF, the field must establish a clear, shared definition of PSF and distinguish it from other comorbidities. Our central premise is that in response to the multidimensional nature of PSF, the field has collapsed distinct features of fatigue into a single, imprecise construct. As a consequence, clinically, fatigue is evaluated almost exclusively using self‐reported measures that combine multiple aspects of fatigue into a single score,23, 26 whereas, scientifically, different operationalizations of fatigue are often used interchangeably.3, 6 These approaches limit our ability to identify the neurobiological mechanisms that give rise to PSF and hinder the development of effective treatments. In an important step toward addressing this problem, Kluger et al. highlighted that fatigue comprises 2 main features, namely “perceptions of fatigue” and “performance fatigability,” and argued that these should not be used interchangeably.3 Although this framework has been highly informative, we argue that it remains incomplete.

Here, we propose to operationalize PSF along 4 distinguishable features that can co‐occur but need not covary16, 35 (Figure): (1) perceived effort (ie, how one perceives a previously exerted action; retrospective), (2) subjective feelings of tiredness (ie, how tired one feels), (3) reduced likelihood to exert effort (ie, an individual's decision to engage in effortful actions; prospective), and (4) decrements in performance (ie, fatigability3). Unlike traditional approaches, each feature should be assessed using dedicated tools. Ratings or ecological momentary assessment can capture perceived effort and subjective feelings of tiredness; effort‐based decision paradigms can quantify an individual's likelihood of exerting effort16, 36; and objective changes in accuracy, variability, or reaction time can index decrements in performance. Operationalizing fatigue through these features could help us move beyond descriptive accounts and toward mechanistic explanations of PSF.

Figure 1. Feature‐based framework of poststroke fatigue.

We propose that PSF is a multidimensional phenomenon, composed of distinguishable features that can co‐occur but need not covary. Our working hypothesis is that each feature has unique neurobiological mechanisms and will require targeted clinical interventions. Although this graphical representation focuses on physical fatigue, we hypothesize that the same framework applies to cognitive fatigue and acknowledge the importance of both domains. By limiting engagement in therapy, impairing motor performance, and disrupting motor learning, PSF is a major barrier to functional recovery after stroke. PSF indicates poststroke fatigue.

We further encourage integrating these behavioral features with neurophysiological (eg, electromyography/electromyography/ECG/heart rate variability) and neuroimaging (eg, magnetic resonance imaging) measures to identify feature‐specific mechanisms and candidate biomarkers of PSF. Our working hypothesis is that each feature is supported by distinct neurobiological systems.16 Specifically, we hypothesize that (1) a sensorimotor network, involving the posterior insula, primary motor and sensory cortices, as well as the cerebellum, underpins perceived effort; (2) an affective network, involving the ventral anterior insula and other limbic regions, underpins subjective feelings of tiredness; (3) a decision‐making/valuation network, involving the ventral striatum and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, underpins effort‐based decision‐making; and (4) task‐specific networks, in either the cognitive or physical domains, will underpin performance.

Within this framework, a critical unanswered question is how stroke interacts with the proposed feature‐specific mechanisms of fatigue. We posit that stroke can influence these systems via 2 complementary ways. First, the primary lesion may directly disrupt the neuroanatomical networks that support individual features.37 Damage to sensorimotor, affective, valuation, or task‐specific networks may disrupt the function of these networks, resulting in a maladaptive behavioral presentation of fatigue that is directly informed by the location of the lesion. Second, stroke may induce a broader allostatic response38, 39 in which lesion‐induced dyshomeostasis across neurophysiological systems drives persistent regulatory signaling.2 In this scenario, PSF may emerge not only from focal structural damage but also as a feedback signal arising from ongoing efforts to restore internal equilibrium and promote energy conservation, rest, and recovery. Importantly, these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and may converge to produce similar behavioral manifestations of PSF. Future studies should therefore investigate whether PSF reflects direct neural disruption, systemic feedback signaling in response to homeostatic challenge, or a combination of both. Understanding how these mechanisms interact is essential for explaining why fatigue persists after stroke and why it remains a prominent barrier to recovery.

Finally, our central premise is that the proposed feature‐based approach will enable clinicians and researchers to more precisely characterize how PSF manifests, distinguish it from other comorbidities, and target it as a primary outcome of rehabilitation. For example, disproportionate increases in perceived effort and reduced willingness to exert effort despite preserved motor performance would be consistent with a central regulatory signal rather than primary neuromuscular weakness. In contrast, isolated decrements in performance accompanied by stable effort ratings and preserved willingness to exert effort would point toward neuromuscular fatigability or weakness. By assessing PSF at the level of its constituent features, an apparently intangible symptom can be transformed into a set of quantifiable, mechanistically interpretable components that can be meaningfully integrated into both clinical practice and research.

CALL TO ACTION: INTEGRATING PSF INTO STROKE REHABILITATION

Given its profound impact on recovery, PSF must be systematically addressed as a core component of stroke rehabilitation. To achieve this, we propose 3 key priorities. First, we should reframe PSF as a primary, persistent symptom that warrants direct clinical and scientific attention. We should no longer dismiss it as a secondary complaint or an inevitable byproduct of rehabilitation. Clinicians should proactively educate patients and caregivers about the prevalence, consequences, and management of PSF. This shared understanding could help align expectations, incorporate fatigue into rehabilitation goals, and guide the development of personalized fatigue management strategies. Similarly, rehabilitation scientists must directly integrate PSF into core research questions rather than treating it as a confound that must be controlled for. More research is needed to clarify how fatigue manifests after stroke, as well as its effects on motor and cognitive function. Experimental and clinical studies that explicitly target fatigue might enable the identification of mechanistic pathways, improve the design of therapeutic interventions, and generate evidence‐based strategies for addressing PSF in rehabilitation settings. We propose that only by simultaneously advancing both the clinical and scientific approaches to PSF can we fully understand and address the barriers that fatigue imposes on poststroke recovery.

Second, rather than collapsing fatigue into a single self‐reported score, PSF could, and we argue should, be measured with a multidimensional battery that separately captures its different features. When feasible, these behavioral indices can be paired with physiological recordings to identify candidate biomarkers of PSF. The development and use of this strategy could result in feature‐based subscores that (1) track trajectories across subacute and chronic phases, (2) reveal individual differences of relative prominence for each feature, and (3) support patient stratification into actionable phenotypes (eg, effort sensitive, fatigability dominant, tiredness dominant, or mixed). Crucially, each phenotype could imply distinct intervention strategies. For example, sensorimotor recalibration and feedback optimization for elevated perceived effort, autonomic regulation strategies for pronounced tiredness, contingency‐based scheduling for effort‐averse decision profiles, and targeted strengthening/aerobic conditioning for predominant fatigability. Characterizing PSF in this way may not only advance science but also transform clinical practice, ensuring fatigue is no longer overlooked but systematically measured, targeted, and followed as a core outcome of recovery after stroke.

Lastly, we may not accomplish these priorities without a multidisciplinary approach to PSF. Collaboration among neurologists, rehabilitation specialists, psychologists, researchers, and, importantly, patients will accelerate understanding, facilitate the development of validated assessment tools, and lead to the establishment of effective, evidence‐based treatments. We propose that such a coordinated approach is essential to shift the current paradigm of stroke care to a more holistic model that addresses inconspicuous yet debilitating symptoms like fatigue. By prioritizing awareness, measurement, and collaboration, we can meaningfully integrate PSF into rehabilitation frameworks and improve long‐term recovery outcomes and quality of life for stroke survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

PSF is not just a vague, secondary symptom that must be pushed through—it is a measurable, mechanistically driven, and clinically significant barrier to recovery after stroke. Yet, continuing to overlook it perpetuates poor quality of life, stalls functional gains, and undermines the central goals of rehabilitation. The scientific understanding and tools to address PSF are already within reach; what remains missing is widespread recognition and coordinated action. By redefining how we conceptualize, measure, and manage fatigue, we can establish PSF as a core target of stroke rehabilitation, at par with motor, cognitive, and speech impairments. To us, the path forward is clear: it is time to stop dismissing fatigue and start treating it as an integral component of stroke recovery.

Sources of Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (K01AG070327 to Neha Lodha) and (R00NS133961 to Agostina Casamento‐Moran).

Footnotes

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.

This article was sent to Jose R. Romero, MD, Associate Editor, for review by expert referees, editorial decision, and final disposition.

For Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 5.