Abstract
Objective
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Notes
Conceptualization: Lannin NA, Hunter P, Morarty J, Cameron ID. Methodology: Lannin NA, Hunter P, Morarty J, Cameron ID. Data collection: Joliffe L, O’Shannessy E, Lannin NA. Formal analysis: EL, Adey-Wakeling Z. Funding acquisition: Lannin NA. Writing – original draft: Adey-Wakeling Z, O’Shannessy E, Lannin NA. Writing – review and editing: Adey-Wakeling Z, O’Shannessy E, Lannin NA. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Table 1.
Characteristic | Study participants (n=9) | Ward population (2015–2016) (n=190) |
---|---|---|
Age (yr) | 40±10 | 44±17 |
Sex, male | 6 (67) | 134 (71) |
Admission FIM motor score | 27.4±24.7 | 41.9±25.9 |
Admission FIM cognition score | 15.3±8.9 | 14.3±8.4 |
Acquired brain injury type | ||
TBI | 3 (33) | 139 (73) |
Non-traumatic hemorrhage | 5 (56) | 72 (38) |
Other | 1 (11) | 46 (24) |
ABI severitya) (lowest GCS) | - | 84.6 |
Time from injury to first observation in weeks | 25 (37)b) | - |
Time from rehabilitation admission to first observation (wk) | 14±10 | - |
Behavioral support plan (number with plan) | 6 (67) | - |
Mobility status at the time of audit (FIM walk item) | 5.3 (1.8) | - |
Compensation status (number compensable) | 1 (11) | 56 (29) |
Table 2.
Exposure |
Participation in physical activity |
Participation in social activity |
Participation in cognitive activityb) |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR (yes vs. no)a) | 95% CI | p-value | OR (yes vs. no)a) | 95% CI | p-value | OR (yes vs. no)a) | 95% CI | p-value | ||
People present | ||||||||||
Alone | 0.09 | 0.05–0.17 | <0.0001 | 0.03 | 0.02–0.05 | <0.0001 | 0.61 | 0.39–0.96 | 0.0327 | |
Nurse | 3.92 | 2.54–6.05 | <0.0001 | 4.81 | 3.26–7.12 | <0.0001 | 0.74 | 0.31–1.75 | 0.4953 | |
Visitors | 5.87 | 2.21–15.54 | <0.0001 | 5.91 | 3.90–8.96 | <0.0001 | 1.65 | 1.11–2.44 | 0.0124 | |
Allied health | 15.27 | 9.06–25.73 | <0.0001 | 10.11 | 7.19–14.2 | <0.0001 | 2.28 | 0.78–6.65 | 0.1323 | |
Medical doctor | 0.58 | 0.04–9.66 | 0.7070 | 2.30 | 0.20–26.47 | 0.5031 | 0 | - | - | |
Patient support | 4.04 | 1.22–13.37 | 0.0224 | 1.95 | 0.71–5.37 | 0.1944 | 2.37 | 1.62–3.48 | <0.0001 | |
Location | ||||||||||
Own room | 0.09 | 0.02–0.49 | 0.0052 | 0.22 | 0.16–0.29 | <0.0001 | 0.88 | 0.26–3.02 | 0.8427 | |
Ward space | 63.25 | 7.30–548.18 | 0.0002 | 3.12 | 1.86–5.23 | <0.0001 | 0.48 | 0.15–1.51 | 0.2077 | |
Therapy gym | 22.19 | 11.82–41.67 | <0.0001 | 4.41 | 2.77–7.04 | <0.0001 | 1.11 | 0.67–1.83 | 0.6956 | |
Dining room | 58.37 | 36.85–92.44 | <0.0001 | 2.59 | 1.67–4.01 | <0.0001 | 4.07 | 2.65–6.23 | <0.0001 | |
Outside, within grounds | 2.73 | 0.59–12.69 | 0.2011 | 2.61 | 1.49–4.59 | 0.0008 | 0.79 | 0.18–3.38 | 0.7488 | |
Weekend | 1.92 | 0.88–4.19 | 0.1002 | 1.56 | 1.14–2.13 | 0.0055 | 1.91 | 0.79–4.62 | 0.1508 |
a) Calculated by multivariable generalized estimating equation (GEE) models controlling for age, sex, injury type, and mobility at the time of the audit.
b) The coefficient for exposure in the GEE model is -18.53, corresponding to an OR = exp(-18.53)≈0. The confidence interval cannot be calculated using the GEE model because the generalized Hessian matrix is not positive definite because of the large number of zero cells [16].
Table 3.
Outcome variable |
Goal-directed participation |
||
---|---|---|---|
ORa) (yes vs. no) | 95% CI | p-value | |
Therapeutic hours | 5.34 | 2.57–11.08 | <0.0001 |
All physical activity | 10.30 | 5.02–21.16 | <0.0001 |
All cognitive activity | 2.74 | 1.21–6.22 | 0.016 |
All social activity | 5.17 | 2.63–10.17 | <0.0001 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
OR and p-values were calculated by four generalized estimating equation (GEE) models. The outcome variables were therapeutic hours, all physical activity, all cognitive activity, and all social activity. For each GEE model, the covariates were goal-directed participation, age, sex, injury type, and mobility at the time of audit.