Profiles of executive functioning following traumatic brain injury and stroke using the assessment of participation and executive functions: combined cross-sectional and longitudinal designs.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-18 DOI:10.2340/jrm.v56.12427
Rotem Eliav, Sivan Hason, Rachel Kizony
{"title":"Profiles of executive functioning following traumatic brain injury and stroke using the assessment of participation and executive functions: combined cross-sectional and longitudinal designs.","authors":"Rotem Eliav, Sivan Hason, Rachel Kizony","doi":"10.2340/jrm.v56.12427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Assessment of Participation and Executive Functions (A-PEX) evaluates executive functioning through daily participation in complex daily activities. This study examines its ability to discriminate between executive functioning profiles post-traumatic brain injury and post-stroke and its sensitivity to changes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional with a longitudinal component.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adults with post-traumatic brain injury (n = 28) and post-stroke (n = 26) in a rehabilitation facility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were administered the A-PEX, Multiple Errands Test-Hospital version and Color Trail Test at 2 time-points 1 month apart. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was administered at the first time-point, and Executive Functions Performance Test's Internet-based Bill Payment subtest at the second. The analysis used Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The stroke group's A-PEX scores were higher than the traumatic brain injury group's at the first time-point (p < 0.05). No differences were found in the other assessments. Within-group differences in both groups were significant in the A-PEX (-3.7 < r < - 2.3, p < 0.05) and Multiple Errands Test-Hospital version (-3.4 < r < -3.3, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The A-PEX may provide valuable information about the uniqueness of executive functioning profiles and patients' progress.</p>","PeriodicalId":54768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10807544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.12427","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The Assessment of Participation and Executive Functions (A-PEX) evaluates executive functioning through daily participation in complex daily activities. This study examines its ability to discriminate between executive functioning profiles post-traumatic brain injury and post-stroke and its sensitivity to changes.

Design: Cross-sectional with a longitudinal component.

Patients: Adults with post-traumatic brain injury (n = 28) and post-stroke (n = 26) in a rehabilitation facility.

Methods: Patients were administered the A-PEX, Multiple Errands Test-Hospital version and Color Trail Test at 2 time-points 1 month apart. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was administered at the first time-point, and Executive Functions Performance Test's Internet-based Bill Payment subtest at the second. The analysis used Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results: The stroke group's A-PEX scores were higher than the traumatic brain injury group's at the first time-point (p < 0.05). No differences were found in the other assessments. Within-group differences in both groups were significant in the A-PEX (-3.7 < r < - 2.3, p < 0.05) and Multiple Errands Test-Hospital version (-3.4 < r < -3.3, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: The A-PEX may provide valuable information about the uniqueness of executive functioning profiles and patients' progress.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用参与和执行功能评估对脑外伤和中风后的执行功能进行剖析:横断面和纵断面相结合的设计。
目标:参与和执行功能评估(A-PEX)通过每天参与复杂的日常活动来评估执行功能。本研究考察了该方法对脑外伤后和脑卒中后执行功能特征的鉴别能力及其对变化的敏感性:设计:横断面,包含纵向部分:患者:一家康复机构中的脑外伤后(28 人)和脑卒中后(26 人)成人:在两个时间点对患者进行A-PEX、多重任务测试-医院版和颜色轨迹测试,时间间隔为1个月。在第一个时间点进行蒙特利尔认知评估,在第二个时间点进行执行功能表现测试的互联网账单支付子测试。分析采用曼-惠特尼和威尔科克森符号秩检验:结果:在第一个时间点,脑卒中组的 A-PEX 分数高于脑外伤组(p 结论:A-PEX 可为脑外伤患者提供有价值的信息:A-PEX可为患者执行功能的独特性和进展提供有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.70%
发文量
102
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year. Original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, special reports and letters to the editor are published, as also are editorials and book reviews. The journal strives to provide its readers with a variety of topics, including: functional assessment and intervention studies, clinical studies in various patient groups, methodology in physical and rehabilitation medicine, epidemiological studies on disabling conditions and reports on vocational and sociomedical aspects of rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy observation of combined transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on gait in 169 subacute stroke patients. Ambulation recovery prediction after hip fracture surgery using the Hip Fracture Short-Term Ambulation Prediction tool. Screening cutoff values to identify the risk of falls after stroke: A scoping review. Risk-taking behaviour and executive functions, a major component of the risk of fall factors after recent stroke. The effects of rehabilitation potential on activities of daily living in patients with stroke in Taiwan: a prospective longitudinal study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1