Validity of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation restrictions scale in a hospital-based stroke population 3 months after stroke

It should just be a binary question: Are you 100% recovered? Yes/No

The no answer then directly leads to an objective damage diagnosis which directly leads to EXACT REHAB PROTOCOLS  that fix such damage. You don't have that yet? Why not? Is your hospital not working toward that solution? Incompetence in action. 

See the Utrecht Scale here:

Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation

The latest here:

Validity of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation restrictions scale in a hospital-based stroke population 3 months after stroke

Joris A. de Graaf

,

Eline J. Volkers

,

Vera P.M. Schepers

,

Johanna M.A. Visser-Meily

&

Marcel W.M. Post

Received 09 Mar 2021, Accepted 10 Jul 2021, Published online: 27 Jul 2021

• Download citation
• https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2021.1956047
• 
  

 

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

ABSTRACT

Background: 

The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation Restrictions scale (USER-P-R) is a promising patient-reported outcome measure, but has currently not been validated in a hospital-based stroke population.  

Objective:

 To examine psychometric properties of the USER-P-R in a hospital-based stroke population 3 months after stroke onset. 

Methods:C

ross-sectional study including 359 individuals with stroke recruited through 6 Dutch hospitals. The USER-P-R, EuroQol 5-dimensional 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Global Health Short Form (PROMIS-10), modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and two items on perceived decrease in health and activities post-stroke were administered in a telephone interview 3 months after stroke. The internal consistency, distribution, floor/ceiling effects, convergent validity and discriminant ability of the USER-P-R were calculated.  

Results: 

Of all participants, 96.9% were living at home and 50.9% experienced no or minimal disabilities (mRS 0–1). The USER-P-R showed high internal consistency (α = 0.90) and a non-normal left-skewed distribution with a ceiling effect (21.4% maximum scores). A substantial proportion of participants with minimal disabilities (mRS 1) experienced restrictions on USER-P-R items (range 11.9–48.5%). The USER-P-R correlated strongly with the EQ-5D-5 L, PROMIS-10 and mRS. The USER-P-R showed excellent discriminant ability in more severely affected individuals with stroke, whereas its discriminant ability in less affected individuals was moderate. 

Conclusions: 

The USER-P-R shows good measurement properties and provides additional patient-reported information, proving its usefulness as an instrument to evaluate participation after 3 months in a hospital-based stroke population.