The activity assessment instruments of the upper limbs do contemplate the most accomplished tasks at home by people with hemiparesis?

• Main Authors: Maíra Caroline de Oliveira, Amanda Magalhães Demartino, Letícia Cardoso Rodrigues, Raquel Pinheiro Gomes, Stella Maris Michaelsen
• Format: Article
• Language: Portuguese
• Published: Universidade Federal de São Carlos 2018-12-01
• Series: Cadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional
• Subjects: stroke; daily activities; upper extremity; hemiplegia; disability evaluation
• Online Access: http://www.cadernosdeterapiaocupacional.ufscar.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/2019/1053

Introduction: There is still no consensus on the recommendation of instruments for evaluation of the upper limb (UL) after Stroke. Objective: Identify the tasks most performed at home by people after stroke, and among these, which are contemplated in the instruments of assessments of UL activity identified in the literature. Method: Direct observation during four hours at the home of 40 participants (57,2±13,0 years old) with hemiparesis, the basic activities of daily life (BADL) and instrumental (IADL) were recorded, identifying those performed by a larger number of participants. Results: From the 247 observed tasks, 70,5% were related to IADL. In the literature we identified six instruments of capacity evaluation: Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT); Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI); JEBSEN-TAYLOR; Test d’Evaluation des Membres Supérieurs de Personnes Agées (TEMPA) and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and four Performance: Motor Activity Log (MAL); Manual Ability Measure (MAM-16 and MAM-36) and ABILHAND. Of the 64 tasks performed by a larger number of participants, the capacity instrument that contemplated the largest number of these was CAHAI (15%) and performance was MAL (33%). The instruments with the greater proportion of tasks observed at home in relation to the total number of the instrument were the TEMPA (all eight) and the MAL (21/30) tasks. Conclusion: Performance instruments contemplate greater proportion of tasks observed directly at home, however the capacity instruments assess distinct tasks. The combination of capacity and performance tools for UL assessment in this population is recommended.