Spanish consensus of occupational therapists on upper limb assessment tools in stroke

Abstract

Introduction: There is a lack of explicit tool recommendations for upper limb (UL) assessment in stroke, occupational therapists are frequently underrepresented in consensus studies, and the frequency of use of tools is highly variable between countries. The objective was to generate national occupational therapy consensus recommendations on UL assessment tools in stroke, and to classify the tools that achieve consensus according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) components. Methods: Three-round e-Delphi study of national scope. Occupational therapists working in Spain with training and experience in neurorehabilitation were recruited. Rounds were based on the completion of questionnaires on UL stroke assessment tools. Consensus was reached when ⩾75% of experts gave a ⩾7 rating on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 29 occupational therapists comprised the expert panel. Twenty-three (17.8%) assessment tools achieved consensus and were classified according to the ICF components of body functions and structures (7), activities (11), participation (3) and other (2). Conclusion: The expert panel recommended 23 outcome measures for UL recovery in stroke, representing all ICF components. The consensus recommendations are intended to assist occupational therapists in their clinical decision-making process, and to reduce the heterogeneity of research tools.

Combination of different noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: A systematic review

“…This review article considers the International Classification of Functionality (ICF) to distinguish improvements in body structures and functions from improvements in activity (Vargus‐Adams & Majnemer, 2014 ). Hence, FMA explores changes obtained in body structures, whereas changes obtained in WMFT or in specific skill acquisition tasks are referred to as activity (Madroñero‐Miguel & Cuesta‐García, 2023 ). The main difference between these two concepts is that the activity is directed toward the performance of a behavioral task, in which accuracy and execution time for the performance of a movement are considered (Shumway‐Cook, 2011 ; Winstein et al., 2014 ).…”