Methods for assessing the limitations of social functioning in patients with upper limb dysfunction after cerebral stroke

Cerebral stroke is one of the most significant causes of persistent disability in the population. Upper limb dysfunction as the most common consequence of stroke significantly limits the social adaptation of patients and their quality of life. Despite the availability of valid tools for assessing motor disorders (FMA-UE, WMFT, ARAT) and household activity (Bartel, Katz, FIM scales), existing methods do not allow for an adequate assessment of patients' social maladaptation outside their usual home environment. The analysis revealed a gap in the rehabilitation examination system: standard scales mainly record basic self-service skills, but do not reflect the difficulties of performing socially significant actions such as using ATMs, electronic devices, public transport, and financial transactions. This problem is particularly important in patients with mild to moderate disabilities, who may maintain domestic independence but experience serious limitations in social interaction. The article substantiates the need to develop a specialized questionnaire focused solely on the assessment of social functioning. Such a tool will make it possible to improve the rehabilitation process by identifying “hidden” disability and developing targeted social reintegration programs, which is a key factor in improving the quality of life of patients after a stroke.

1. Mullick A. A., Subramanian S. K., Levin M. F. Emerging evidence of the association between cognitive deficits and arm motor recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015; 33(3): 389–403.

2. Ruan Y., Shi Y., Guo Y.F., et al. Association between grip strength, rapid gait speed and cognition in people aged 50 and above in Shanghai during 2009–2010. Chin J Prev Med. 2020; 54(12): 1414–1420.

3. Smychek V.B., Halinouskaya N.V. Clinical and pathophysiologic features of cerebral hypertensive crisis. Kazanskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2016; 97(2): 181–187. (in Russian)

4. Nakayama H., Jorgensen H.S., Raaschou H.O., et al. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 75(4): 394–398.

5. Prokopenko S.V., Mozheiko E.Iu., Alekseevich G.V. Methods of assessment of movement functions in the upper limb. Zhurnal nevrologii i psihiatrii im. S. S. Korsakova. 2016; 116(7): 101–107. (in Russian)

6. Melnikova E.A., Starkova E.Yu., Razumov A.N. Modern view on upper limb physical rehabilitation after stroke. Voprosy kurortologii, fizioterapii i lechebnoj fizicheskoj kul'tury. 2023; 100(1): 42–53. (in Russian)

7. Huynh B.P., DiCarlo J.A., Vora I., et al. Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the upper extremity fugl-meyer assessment in individuals with moderate to severe acute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2023; 37(8): 545–553.

8. Suponeva N.A., Yusupova D.G., Zimin A.A., et al. Validation of the russian version of the fugl-meyer assessment of physical performance for assessment of patients with post-stroke paresis. Zhurnal nevrologii i psihiatrii im. S. S. Korsakova. 2021; 121(8): 86–90. (in Russian)

9. Crow J.L., Harmeling-van der Wel B.C. Hierarchical properties of the motor function sections of the fugl-meyer assessment scale for people after stroke. Phys. Ther. 2008; 88(12): 1554–1567.

10. Nikolaev V.A., Nikolaev A.A. Scales and tests for evaluating the effectiveness of telerehabilitation of stroke patients. Menedzher zdravoohraneniya. 2022; (5): 48–57. (in Russian)

11. Belova A.N., Sheiko G.E., Rakhmanova E.M., et al. Hand function assessment: tests for adult patients with central nervous system disorders. Fizicheskaya i reabilitacionnaya medicina, medicinskaya reabilitaciya. 2024; 6(2): 172–187. (in Russian)

12. Wolf S.L., Catlin P.A., Ellis M., et al. Assessing wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001; 32(7): 1635–1639.

13. Kapadia N., Jovanovic J., Musselman K., et al. Preliminary evaluation of the reliability and validity of the 3D printed Toronto rehabilitation institute-hand function test in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord. Med. 2021; 44(1): 225–233.

14. Lyle R.C. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981; 4(4): 483–492.

15. Carr J.H., Shepherd R.B., Nordholm L., et al. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985; 65(2): 175–180.

16. Lannin N.A. Reliability, validity and factor structure of the upper limb subscale of the Motor Assessment Scale (UL-MAS) in adults following stroke. Disabil. Rehabil. 2004; 26(2): 109–116.

17. Kovalenko A.P., Kamaeva O.V., Poleshchuk Y.R., et al. Scales and tests in the rehabilitation and treatment of patients with spasticity of the upper limbs. Zhurnal nevrologii i psihiatrii im. S. S. Korsakova. 2020; 120(4): 107–114. (in Russian)

18. Green J., Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001; 23(15): 670–676.

19. Murphy M.A., Resteghini C., Feys P., et al. An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurol. 2015; 15: 29. doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0292-6.

20. Burridge J., Murphy M.A., Buurke J., et al. A systematic review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? Front Neurol. 2019; 10. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00567.

21. Bushnell C., Bettger J.P., Cockroft K.M., et al. Chronic stroke outcome measures for motor function intervention trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015; 8(6): 163–169.

22. Hartigan I. A comparative review of the Katz ADL and the Barthel Index in assessing the activities of daily living of older people. Int J Older People Nurs. 2007; 2(3): 204–212.

23. Katz S. Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983; 31(12): 721–727.

24. Katz S., Downs T.D., Cash H.R., et al. Progress in development of the index of ADL1. The Gerontologist. 1970; 10(1): 20–30.

25. Thomas L.B. Assessing Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), and Functional Status – ProQuest. J Life Care Plan. 2023; 21(2): 37–56.

26. Ebrahim S., Nouri F., Barer D. Measuring disability after a stroke. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985; 39(1): 86–89.

27. Barer D.H. Use of the Nottingham ADL scale in stroke: relationship between functional recovery and length of stay in hospital. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1989; 23(4): 242–247.

28. Lincoln N.B., Edmans J.A. A re-validation of the rivermead ADL scale for elderly patients with stroke. Age Ageing. 1990; 19(1): 19–24.

29. Wade D.T. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 1992; 5(5): 682–686.

30. Galardini L., Coppari A., Pellicciari L., et al. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the shortened version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Phys Ther. 2024; 104(5). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzae033.

31. Sigirtmac I.C., Oksuz C. Systematic review of the quality of the cross-cultural adaptations of disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH). Med Lav. 2021; 112(4): 279–291.

32. Mironov A.R., Demin A.S., Rodomanova L.A., et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the russian version of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii. 2024; 30(1): 25–31. (in Russian)

33. Pizov N.A. Rehabilitation after stroke. Medicinskij sovet. 2023; 17(21): 28–33. (in Russian)

34. Kandyba D.V. Basics of care for a patient with a stroke. Rossijskij semejnyj vrach. 2019; 23(2): 5–14. (in Russian)

35. Isakova E.V., Egorova Y.V. Visual and acoustic feedback on the support reaction for upper and lower extremities. Al'manah klinicheskoj mediciny. 2021; 49(6): 435–442.

36. Jokinen H., Melkas S., Ylikoski R., et al. Post-stroke cognitive impairment is common even after successful clinical recovery. Eur J Neurol. 2015; 22(9): 1288–1294.

37. Rohde D., Gaynor E., Large M., et al. The Impact of cognitive impairment on poststroke outcomes. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2019; 32(5): 275–281.

38. Sibolt G., Curtze S., Melkas S., et al. Poststroke dementia is associated with recurrent ischaemic stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013; 84(7): 722–726.

39. Zakharova-Luneva E., Cooke D. M., Okano S., et al. The relationship between cognition and functional outcomes in rehabilitation: FIMCog vs. MoCA. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020; 20(4): 336–342.