Abstract :

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of sudden loss of work and productivity in adults. With no existing instrument to assess or predict a return to work for stroke survivors. There is a growing need as more survivors are discharged with expectations to return to productive life. This study focused on developing a new instrument called the Stroke-Specific Return to Work Instrument (SSRTWI) to assess and predict when stroke survivors can return to work. Given the increasing incidence of stroke and its impact on productivity, this is an important area of study.

Methods: This study used a mixed-method approach using qualitative exploratory in-depth semi-structured interviews. Fifty-three stroke survivors within productive age participated. Twenty survivors and fourteen experts were involved in the initial development through focus group discussions. Thematic analysis was used to analyze focus group data. There was a four-stage testing process to ensure internal consistency. 33 participants were involved in initial instrument testing. Content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were assessed.

Results: Participants were aged 26-55 years (mean age = 48.4 ± 5.5 years). Seventy-six items initially generated through focus group discussions were reviewed. Eighteen items were eliminated while twenty-two items were reworded. The Content validity index was 0.93, Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was 0.89, and the Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91.

Conclusion: This study addresses an important gap in stroke rehabilitation by providing a validated instrument to assess return-to-work readiness for stroke survivors. The mixed-method approach and involvement of survivors and experts in the development process strengthened the instrument’s relevance and validity.

---

Keywords :

Development, Psychometric testing, Return to work, Scale., stroke

---

References :

1. Duong, P.K., Egan, M.Y., Meyer, M.J., & Morrison, T.L. (2020). Intention to return to work after stroke following rehabilitation in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 87(3), 221-226. doi: 10.1177/0008417420905706.
2. Radford, K., Grant, M., & Sinclair, E. (2020). Describing return to work after stroke: A feasibility trial of 12-month outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 52(4), jrm00048. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2647.
3. Langhammer, B., Sunnerhagen, K., & Sällström, S. (2018). Return to work after specialized rehabilitation – An explorative longitudinal study in a cohort of severely disabled persons with stroke in seven countries: The Sunnaas International Network stroke study. Brain and Behavior, 8(8), e01055. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1055.
4. Johnson, C.O., Nguyen, M., Roth, G., Nichols, E., Alam, T., Abate, D., … Anjomshoa, M. (2019). Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurology, 18, 439–458. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1.
5. Brannigan, C., Galvin, R., & Walsh, M. (2016). Barriers and facilitators associated with return to work after stroke: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(3), 211-222. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1141242.
6. Arwert, H., Schults, M., & Meesters, J. (2017). Return to Work 2–5 Years After Stroke: A Cross Sectional Study in a Hospital-Based Population. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(2), 239-246. doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9651-4.
7. Gbiri, C.A., & Akinpelu, A.O. (2013). Relationship between post-stroke functional recovery and quality of life. The Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 20(1), 29-33. doi: 10.4103/1117-1936.165602.
8. Dick, R., Crawshaw, J.R., Karpf, S., Schuh, S.C., & Zhang, X. (2020). Identity, Importance, and Their Roles in How Corporate Social Responsibility Affects 169. doi: 10.1007/s10869-019-09619-w.
9. Gbiri, C.A., Olawale, O.A., & Ileyemi, B.L. (2015). Improving societal integration and productivity after a stroke: a randomized control study. Physiotherapy, 101(1), e449. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.3231.
10. Ashley, K.D., Lee, L.T., & Heaton, K. (2019). Return to work among stroke survivors. Workplace Health and Safety, 67(2), 87-94. doi: 10.1177/2165079918812483.
11. Etuknwa, A., Daniels, K., & Eib, C. (2019). Sustainable Return to Work: Systematic Review Focusing on Personal and Social Factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 29(4), 679–700. doi: 10.1007/s10926-019-09832-7.
12. Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In Smith, B. & Sparkes, A.C. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise
13. Terwee, C.B., Bota, D.M., de Boera, M.R., Van der Windta, D.A., Kuola, D.L., Dekkera, J., … Veta, H.C.W. (2007). Quality Criteria proposed for Measurement properties of Health Status Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34e42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
14. Owolabi, M.O. (2011). HRQOLISP-26: A Concise Multiculturally Valid, Multidimensional, Flexible and Reliable Stroke-Specific Measure ISRN Neurology 10, 5402. doi: 10.5402/2011/295096.
15. Osundiya, O.C., Owolabi, M.O., & Hamzat, T.K. (2016). Sensitivity and Responsiveness of Ibadan Stroke-Specific Pain Scale. African Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, 8(1-2), 17-20. doi: 10.4314/ajprs.v8i1-2.3.
16. Lynn, M.R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 381–385. doi: 10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.
17. Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
18. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., & Owen, S.V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–67.
19. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, L.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill.