Determinants of the number of ATDs used by community-dwelling people recovering from stroke with mild cognitive impairments: A path analysis.
Young-Myoung Lim, Hee Kim
PMID 40511445WHAT IT FOUND
In 196 community-dwelling stroke survivors with normal to mild cognitive impairment, being older, more anxious, or more involved in daily activities went with using more assistive devices.
Cognition did not predict how many devices someone used.
Key findings
01Older age, higher anxiety and higher participation each directly predicted using a larger number of assistive devices, with anxiety showing the strongest direct association of the three (β = .361).
02Cognition was not significantly related to the number of assistive devices used, neither directly nor in total effect.
03The devices in use most often were those for personal care and protection (386 devices; 20.6%), home furnishings and adaptations such as handrails (335; 17.9%), and personal mobility such as walkers and wheelchairs (316; 16.9%).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Everything was measured at one point in time, so the study cannot show which came first. Anxiety and participation may shape device use, device use may shape participation, or both. Only people scoring above 18 on the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination were included, so nothing here applies to stroke survivors with more than mild cognitive impairment, which is exactly the group where device use is hardest. The sample was a convenience sample from particular centres in Korea: mostly male, mostly not working, half with a monthly household income at or below ₩990,000. It may not represent your caseload. The researchers changed the model after seeing that the first version did not fit, adding pathways suggested by the data itself. The revised model fits well, but it was fitted to these 196 people and would need testing in a new sample. Whether a variable is treated as a cause or an effect was decided from previous literature rather than from the data; the paper notes the relationships could run either way. Important influences were not measured, including stroke severity and functional impairment, socioeconomic factors, and the home environment. Demographics and the number of devices used were self-reported or reported by family members, so device counts may be inaccurate; people who used no devices were excluded altogether.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The work was funded by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the government of Korea (Ministry of Science, ICT, & Future Planning) (NRF-2017R1C1B5017510). The funder's role in designing, running or writing the study is not described.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as a causal chain in which anxiety or participation makes someone use more assistive devices, and do not use it to justify handing out more equipment. Everything was measured at a single point in time, so the direction of these relationships is unknown, and the paper says so itself.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →