<%BANNER%>

Impact of Post-Stroke Mobility on Activity and Participation

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101124_AAAACF INGEST_TIME 2010-11-24T18:55:39Z PACKAGE UFE0011389_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 11127 DFID F20101124_AABXHC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH schmid_a_Page_096.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6aa546d4d40206f6f1efeb83751006e0
SHA-1
0808f14bd61ae489ca66179e1a5a6c6e4b8409f5
1053954 F20101124_AABWEA schmid_a_Page_044.tif
b38d33cfffa1d3690922f3e90ac0b891
522e8414ea3e7d7079ac90274d6336eb3572847e
15099 F20101124_AABWDM schmid_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
a5ec76408bb1e0ef7ed3b60dba19d374
1c06100793b3a83b0c58b7159527001361470e9d
6333 F20101124_AABXGO schmid_a_Page_087thm.jpg
423afcf28a60909d7b52c63ff45ec98f
cd4bd4f55d10cca797ca99a7f4ca74cd3f5c5f3f
1901 F20101124_AABWCX schmid_a_Page_014.txt
a27f6d153fa75d5d6398916a8d3e9b2b
24bb26a9dc870240ba4f6c462cad49889fd00d3a
6584 F20101124_AABXFZ schmid_a_Page_078thm.jpg
40baa4f18ea092e384a86892ef55bc8b
4c75649c95c980ee0733fbb19c46b9c310fc914f
3566 F20101124_AABXHD schmid_a_Page_096thm.jpg
f4630d45e32e2c4e818dbf2e587f6123
17b53cbea16cebb9082c8261c3cf0d4e5cdc84ca
24346 F20101124_AABWEB schmid_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
633bc61e17f178b7a164f8df1c2e24a6
c90a5e994e5a45812aa4bf9cbdddaee7899c859f
44884 F20101124_AABWDN schmid_a_Page_090.pro
bffbe59a82e240cfe0c9b8383d70a796
5cd4f64d85c2538819a262f8eed2291e6ff5cd9b
22254 F20101124_AABXGP schmid_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
0dc8b766368be0affc14df5bd3db07fd
c4db536ed9ab77ed52333b9e6036772e2437ef1d
F20101124_AABWCY schmid_a_Page_031.tif
7e5ce2fe46ba23439b7b668a08fa32e9
0b87ad022d93002f67eb3572e266126340e63788
11238 F20101124_AABXHE schmid_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
578dae75a1e424ffabe67159b51962c3
1f3bc3f27270eae967cbc16c806054dc8a969550
108876 F20101124_AABWEC schmid_a_Page_083.jp2
4b734d2d2911902f3dc3c473e248c228
34666cab4e24805e900de256c85cd46c77dec69b
49104 F20101124_AABWDO schmid_a_Page_026.pro
31dbac57af391fee9e25304cc401f1be
366ce1d1965f8b1af496562bd16df8040bc05579
6396 F20101124_AABXGQ schmid_a_Page_088thm.jpg
5e3ffade485284451f16b469022e030b
d9a34f37461093b9fd1c419f41bbf1defb2b19b9
63781 F20101124_AABWCZ schmid_a_Page_093.jpg
634fd8d185d0eacedc6c2a1a45cfef48
994a0767e98869c8985a6b02613d2d52d750f42f
19095 F20101124_AABXHF schmid_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
53526e6cf0daec5a91ec52e32ed5d594
d61799d8cd65eb56155ccf7c9ee19f029ca93c61
26317 F20101124_AABWED schmid_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
68b0e42589286f2df0524e8fbab552c4
3e8c2cbcabfee6f4051cbe836f191cddb32ceb64
107113 F20101124_AABWDP schmid_a_Page_023.jp2
2df9b704264e14a64ce1d88f8ccfdea1
b2eb8d719e20b6e55c79d93143ca6a657339453c
4308 F20101124_AABXGR schmid_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
a823f5d4c080365beca58a111029b8b6
256328ccb35a767f5a44c3dbe7a82c2529dd5990
5454 F20101124_AABXHG schmid_a_Page_098thm.jpg
2316b910e8b1410bf4d9e720574b3880
ae14bda0172ad36b8d1996010cf3ac356f4fe10b
105254 F20101124_AABWEE schmid_a_Page_018.jp2
f1ca308998a986a26e9b85d848e095bc
c77fb80258576e0dd10d927a4e4856e7be769714
1051985 F20101124_AABWDQ schmid_a_Page_099.jp2
1c9a92e83d978f26ec15544d3a0e9013
94883c44a9349eecc972b52ec3a4ebf130313f78
1632 F20101124_AABXGS schmid_a_Page_089thm.jpg
42f660ebf4a831a1de15de89bc958942
77b0bab51f9e50dd34b2f583f660b63ed58343a3
26036 F20101124_AABXHH schmid_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
e24d6c4a3247256fa54599b0b36e63a3
d221f59804760be6ea3b2dcfabf0109845c23027
65095 F20101124_AABWEF schmid_a_Page_027.jpg
6e7881920f62b8b28d557e2783b36f71
82b7b70b34b46eb8f1e6384b66b767b23e5a4973
F20101124_AABWDR schmid_a_Page_003.tif
5fef3cb4d420d65df76116d8c0487ffd
e9483b5d1308c7aa40743232785ca63a5ea6cf9f
21269 F20101124_AABXGT schmid_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
1e7d806310352820c5a5ea92ebbb1291
2f9a65e00a94128c557bd9c5548b2906a97405bd
23650 F20101124_AABXHI schmid_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
c2aeb33e91014637c61fe1afb9fe9554
a5f021623bd6d96e835ec80184b882251b514c7c
22248 F20101124_AABXGU schmid_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
a4dcae979041990a359ddbfce157b356
c21bc6094f128a0839f124c8c7140c808f6bd0ed
17445 F20101124_AABWDS schmid_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
80752189e4633e60a12ec50f9e4011da
8a2345b20012d017488e51d0d318b930917804b0
6790 F20101124_AABWEG schmid_a_Page_055thm.jpg
26149d70a6e671908011f992ebbed5cf
8cc549e5d30327bb94e30f909ccd4ceb732cce79
6824 F20101124_AABXHJ schmid_a_Page_102thm.jpg
82749fb59812b869d1bd6769592530f1
9c1cb9821d6099a09ae1ed30eddd65df11cc7679
23636 F20101124_AABXGV schmid_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
a88ea938e9565cbe367fb1f4782d41a2
9101fd0e82cc784741649e32aa406517b396f6a0
22905 F20101124_AABWDT schmid_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
038e02a979c1cf58b4495fdbaa3c39cf
0b35da5cd687e31043d771d890387986f8288cb1
2122 F20101124_AABWEH schmid_a_Page_080.txt
f43fdc1fd14622d885e88cc03e7ff33d
ad2ae5385071560dd17c4a647090c07f47ebec50
24572 F20101124_AABXHK schmid_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
e1d9bd596f8775eedc4de27eb01fad02
dc02504c74d7b127028c1fa2fdb2cbc419e2f3f1
6872 F20101124_AABWEI schmid_a_Page_100thm.jpg
74184816d5b0960876e20990c13788eb
cd82482570a1c7c7de09fcff032cfc623e84f417
6897 F20101124_AABXHL schmid_a_Page_103thm.jpg
577724cc91361bec9262a5d94bcf9334
f73e1824637341b916932e9448b1c4f26376d537
6491 F20101124_AABXGW schmid_a_Page_092thm.jpg
3dee9949cad1b8384ddccc81362d49ee
564198c587ab4adb51f655a711b30e4feb18eb5e
3299 F20101124_AABWDU schmid_a_Page_097thm.jpg
968c869531b9d476053cbb6e85422c00
74b2a1cb8779332cdc31dbea2b462e68ce9f960b
2421 F20101124_AABWEJ schmid_a_Page_115.txt
bc504dddb67e462c7d7f3c92c742055d
8c2d4885a1691a86913eb52ea395be3c5fcb0229
6724 F20101124_AABXIA schmid_a_Page_111thm.jpg
eb1449278fe6d22a4105ef7b56277eaa
3b38293e7f772479a09228a88e0777565a749b34
7153 F20101124_AABXHM schmid_a_Page_104thm.jpg
08593dd769c9468a4a9bc0e6bc5d176a
a36829ee241299e512032e85f3a0752748fddbda
20751 F20101124_AABXGX schmid_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
25cef718b86c7aefe788e6c9a8582cc5
2fc9ab76e1f4acd3940cf7ff85da36f3aeb8dddc
2158 F20101124_AABWDV schmid_a_Page_033.txt
03f4951a3e2d870e92ce26894457f26f
c4b4df18378baa2dad5353f9bd7e2478653697cb
22895 F20101124_AABWEK schmid_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
3d8029667fcfb81cd476e2baff78113b
1d3d570cdd94e5be25103abb6b42b9d111668c96
23087 F20101124_AABXIB schmid_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
e51e8bd717ac074f581c3438d49a813c
b5d7388267422cfb4c7b0da51052369f355f00c6
23638 F20101124_AABXHN schmid_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
7ad0f18459b435903ba7786356b23b5f
46e8b01eeb642749126d69fba2725f6c074e6bff
5911 F20101124_AABXGY schmid_a_Page_093thm.jpg
7162c89e44454337ebcb39d8f862bb8f
a0afb55a7776757fa00ffd37184a4163d0de8326
84962 F20101124_AABWDW schmid_a_Page_012.jp2
69a32862adbb1684c67086052d7f64ee
67c48286c8bec70076026278553e12613b24e8a7
24000 F20101124_AABWEL schmid_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
44f61a876de59826c20be769408160df
72041a8f7607557fda588ba224f35d5a1a2e275d
6608 F20101124_AABXIC schmid_a_Page_112thm.jpg
f0c295d7f88da0ba854116d646729a72
97ed40967f4718d7f32af76d2f8fe99cc8852068
6528 F20101124_AABXHO schmid_a_Page_105thm.jpg
b047e1999f6ba08ae3f76e6bd24a7062
c9d99f0b33941384b4231953532c70c2967e499a
1540 F20101124_AABXGZ schmid_a_Page_094thm.jpg
ebbad071099e9ebe25f77fed1afcd136
b8a68d3fd868eb9c6a6b65373f4bebbd0869b52a
69055 F20101124_AABWDX schmid_a_Page_037.jpg
be72631ea161e4c10021699071ec907d
d792164c99cb1d4f2817ea0fe83240836a355e78
14747 F20101124_AABWEM schmid_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
462a78f86b2b687a00db5afa8d34305a
2e99ce976a8ffe012c8cc16cc9d608cfb628af5a
23457 F20101124_AABXID schmid_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
f7f517e001f489bf61372e7c802bf717
b658222bfac5900d36d1640450c0f0a2f8b8451e
24524 F20101124_AABXHP schmid_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
f528a55bc4a2f02989fa2853fd1d7ee3
2e65fad8a7b2260ab45f7f4bf8dbf86b113f18c9
1937 F20101124_AABWDY schmid_a_Page_035.txt
fa16b58534847f18d48271d1107cbf47
01554a66248bf8f52306c70610c464884d2458e2
10423 F20101124_AABWFB schmid_a_Page_002.jpg
909d12e83e776cdd3c2f2a891a9d7040
d11a99e75727012d624128f3062b468172680539
78971 F20101124_AABWEN schmid_a_Page_055.jpg
da214be34fe1d4b2359f141fc9785859
519cba0dcd247e22430c630f93a61018e67daaac
6688 F20101124_AABXIE schmid_a_Page_113thm.jpg
f00c5e711c8d92291a8dc416d02e6435
4fc192db77c9fc06f3ee319e010284a1bd0f31cd
6968 F20101124_AABXHQ schmid_a_Page_106thm.jpg
f34078fb97de5fc74c85342bd20610b3
240178d5189fbb2e039429dbb22265dec8cefc7a
24178 F20101124_AABWDZ schmid_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
9df34b0b1b6e6f772f54635ea6a27e6a
6f34d08a72daebef5776d2dfe3905cf4a9534a62
61513 F20101124_AABWFC schmid_a_Page_004.jpg
76e5c1681b44f1f0a5fa62d3dd6bbc19
1c359b766add72e0440b8810791c8fe9714e44a0
12286 F20101124_AABWEO schmid_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
8ef55851b0e2d080ddcd5bb363043a2d
ecf9ff4950e87b5c9eccc85217a47a1a11400dc6
22874 F20101124_AABXIF schmid_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
81541852b5d7e92499b4bd0169a4ead3
6bde1263a9cb711db00df71f2583bc7902c1fbcf
22752 F20101124_AABXHR schmid_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
021e3bd8e588b38e9462f826c7251f07
608b45c8c3f0478a8abacd715d2a284ff195f892
45145 F20101124_AABWFD schmid_a_Page_005.jpg
a9992cebab24761b7b1eca3d93a3762e
5fa10058b99ae8d49ff6c84f332f628c869bd22c
48360 F20101124_AABWEP schmid_a_Page_039.pro
5f4c061159aeca8988ed644980a1b334
0e5a4f406564a61b70a53197a63cdc1e6769c0e7
6459 F20101124_AABXIG schmid_a_Page_114thm.jpg
9455f15154e4f65b737248cc0005525e
f9c190bae61ce27d61e5a26344ef4a964a9c0aa4
6535 F20101124_AABXHS schmid_a_Page_107thm.jpg
3542b3659d09b6492d7b167f5646fd15
29c565361f2e5f89b2d286f8e91fb4382602e073
71457 F20101124_AABWFE schmid_a_Page_006.jpg
775df0f004cc4a3f93fd9b4b8b3c75b0
8af7371e71ed0e181706e9610fd8e27ef96f2c48
1989 F20101124_AABWEQ schmid_a_Page_076.txt
49f089a4196cee76a2ac49a50503c5ed
604baecff66a7f5a1b2b1fbc8f4c97fe1844f990
24624 F20101124_AABXIH schmid_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
14fb0aeb7294676fbb0994932c788d34
8397907653688a259128c518e68ddde6545448f4
22899 F20101124_AABXHT schmid_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
d853fa18049bdc2769418e9334f4cd43
9b95b2ecf24305622a51e53bda17989e21e314a1
92676 F20101124_AABWFF schmid_a_Page_007.jpg
623ec8f0b5562685f62367a85169686a
cc4fd65cd994d0fdb8169725bd13ac988a8659c2
F20101124_AABWER schmid_a_Page_049.tif
110e882c37323d2edd6ea54e868e1c14
141ba2ee0b6471c997ca20b4d05d7db38c5e7d3a
6616 F20101124_AABXII schmid_a_Page_115thm.jpg
b10d5ddaa14b480a6ab4e897f4b68bd3
611affaedd98803cb86061accbbd9ef626cdae1c
6652 F20101124_AABXHU schmid_a_Page_108thm.jpg
4dc73457203334c8c3fcf3f7841c02b4
33b00ab2db1ffd32b5ba9465eab63cb483d6d462
45053 F20101124_AABWFG schmid_a_Page_008.jpg
f0dce274bb4ebfbe24e6d7bd5429dbe8
564ecf6b9d81a36bc8295ea761ed1213e2c3e582
1739 F20101124_AABWES schmid_a_Page_012.txt
798998d7f35d8832610bccca92a639c0
3a2dc34ba3a89a222a3b9e331df1e89620049690
23175 F20101124_AABXIJ schmid_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
e7192e3e8b7dc7a3f2029e4c8d61eb91
d08b63abc975e404bbc43cfd3010dacbcd9f5f95
23551 F20101124_AABXHV schmid_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
593c1eee83e6544152cd56238d8dd3ac
29701bb4bd126de5fcbfbe051c47c54d7d97ef57
65863 F20101124_AABWFH schmid_a_Page_009.jpg
a7a4606307a5806af941185ee4d90a1f
f243c8c2e83e43ce93d53b327f8edc062789184b
56046 F20101124_AABWET schmid_a_Page_116.pro
49f2b28905add82f8b725fe832517113
973e19c2d58b67b71180790725809aed349fa7c0
6733 F20101124_AABXIK schmid_a_Page_116thm.jpg
8978058a0375b47664065b69af793c14
a9ce744b7c9b929bc40711722f5f85e87f8cc665
6777 F20101124_AABXHW schmid_a_Page_109thm.jpg
32076f1416427fee82ebaf9f57ee7986
8e071015ba723e820098819d22a5f435831a6d5f
13998 F20101124_AABWFI schmid_a_Page_010.jpg
53b9f722ea06479d2ee0a592e275a198
d129af1e01604c4c3114593833b377b81035f368
90009 F20101124_AABWEU schmid_a_Page_100.jpg
50f71ac2301bfecb946f5491c42397a3
8d808b9894128f0fc9ee9d51b8e7ee5156c42b95
7831 F20101124_AABXIL schmid_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
94ca492e81bb36dae6e0d4bb41d80323
bffe0c1cf990042c6bc2a7e3bc083c551a0088bf
14808 F20101124_AABWFJ schmid_a_Page_011.jpg
f57f354e8f0e1b4741ad5fc365b0451f
0f4d79c33f5d37e1f36f01152355117bbe16a14d
2469 F20101124_AABXIM schmid_a_Page_117thm.jpg
89d50959dbf95facecb9ce3aa058ff92
8a5cf32cd279c9ddcc544141dbcad791c599f5d5
23242 F20101124_AABXHX schmid_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
edae4ef398488eeedb68d31792b1cae8
0b5ef853b0d415d2a7a19fddc9da59141b8eb648
58941 F20101124_AABWFK schmid_a_Page_012.jpg
5475b66d215ea44e73940a18ada023aa
d973ee9656c92bd31f1a36fe5e74040bdae6eef9
7068 F20101124_AABWEV schmid_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
2d78eee675d2b470786ba426826fae68
00ca783c23dae19c11ea78a121d9b1ef91d39ee5
6555 F20101124_AABXHY schmid_a_Page_110thm.jpg
00bc9448d8f3737a7b34c8b4df2cc602
08ab36cca7c35a7018916c6a1339917e72e9f3dd
54909 F20101124_AABWFL schmid_a_Page_013.jpg
5f4fc9641570b4496abe33614c3b648f
6690385de31b7c6b90428400613140598499591a
56202 F20101124_AABWEW schmid_a_Page_108.pro
e086be8e654de0bedfe1ae6468c03bb6
edbfced2855a0a7d2e2d380b4a4b2356000c00ee
23737 F20101124_AABXHZ schmid_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
c3c0ff0a256c4105c7b40bf98ead21a5
79d422948dcd3b6d969a1592f876287be4f8baa2
72235 F20101124_AABWGA schmid_a_Page_029.jpg
b10e8d11eeaf687cad960cc2b8887d4f
e5a4e715b0ee88ffcd258e8bf933f78be3c3efab
66080 F20101124_AABWFM schmid_a_Page_014.jpg
ec50d9626df1e269ed30a5b4c1e7ab7b
cc4f8a276bbbb1c1dc7e1bb98516b7f678375872
6710 F20101124_AABWEX schmid_a_Page_101thm.jpg
a024f9e5ff3323edbc2de7c456d1592b
0f93d79c9e90659344fc8487c70bfbefdfb0558c
82911 F20101124_AABWGB schmid_a_Page_030.jpg
17471653fb5ee752a6effff954678633
4600ff0b26fb264b46dd0e0a34458137d48e8702
73481 F20101124_AABWFN schmid_a_Page_015.jpg
2f3c01cf7540fb2d5806a6ad16a4e303
86e08cb0204fe17c089c2745c43e1c1fb828390a
136791 F20101124_AABWEY UFE0011389_00001.mets FULL
94f70a907a40480e36d59e13287ec89c
2e454b3f460356f69f49492ab8e0548530fa7e59
68373 F20101124_AABWGC schmid_a_Page_031.jpg
280ba178edd6018bb27bffc51947c8e1
415a5f398ab03de88341310526fc1e641dbd86fd
72988 F20101124_AABWFO schmid_a_Page_016.jpg
6d10fe54254ae80ed765e969b0dbfb35
8f2824106f2279225bd451c6379e754fd77a02ad
68881 F20101124_AABWGD schmid_a_Page_032.jpg
e915766dc814c480f0633a3a7148a594
e5bd151ce8d079ca3272982b4623749a144f2c61
58518 F20101124_AABWFP schmid_a_Page_017.jpg
62e84704c31a5fd7c0c544b4d9f40bdd
779e94d9b02cb404a40771f2362927fe5042bdb0
75955 F20101124_AABWGE schmid_a_Page_033.jpg
6891661ec3fca9c093d3befbe74758c6
5768f5afac558b8b9f31dbabae9acd48bb898c76
69497 F20101124_AABWFQ schmid_a_Page_018.jpg
5ccab48dee12478c78fb8d7819d518c4
c2274ebdc89dbd3a6528fae20bcccc5012b9ce71
78060 F20101124_AABWGF schmid_a_Page_034.jpg
841749dc3429ae8ca2e024c43b1864b5
c4703b5dc6ad9d97c113c21bed856f4af768d485
71452 F20101124_AABWFR schmid_a_Page_019.jpg
75e4234746cc903e46ffb4135a82f014
31812c321d6cf94713b85e20063d6e1960bb0ba1
74562 F20101124_AABWGG schmid_a_Page_035.jpg
072e662706a78913685bf6a567370ef3
a844967d23e3146f6facb9e06e3039fc953e3ef4
53788 F20101124_AABWFS schmid_a_Page_020.jpg
69d8f8876747810001062d4883f65271
efa96a90b81790977308b0fc2950b1fb1d681755
73572 F20101124_AABWGH schmid_a_Page_036.jpg
956d848241eecc769c9cd74747fc4367
16a5beb62ece7256c338ad9050bacb0eccd6c078
21851 F20101124_AABWFT schmid_a_Page_021.jpg
4a7b5196b1c6552250b9e1281e4b5a49
2e02c2e371c602e0ba8466017081909553293594
83503 F20101124_AABWGI schmid_a_Page_038.jpg
f93d165eacc6c80094d36ae67edaa7bf
4d4f6fcbb325ddc0d38b0c36765a3f575a335ef6
65172 F20101124_AABWFU schmid_a_Page_022.jpg
3a679af89fad66e432dd13044359d40c
926956fddbbc645770648fa527c84bc97ce3e172
75896 F20101124_AABWGJ schmid_a_Page_039.jpg
55e0e6db0deb18d2ae025bd69491b78b
75f19236725ef8b448aa69473117100fea00b324
70869 F20101124_AABWFV schmid_a_Page_023.jpg
1384558522bdb463f57f4de28a5f6cfd
139c240e11da81d9f0c58ccc970c858f1037a337
70933 F20101124_AABWGK schmid_a_Page_040.jpg
b5647076ececcffdad3fab958c804435
3255f9404550990d70a6a6cb5c2bbad5bc851f0b
77353 F20101124_AABWGL schmid_a_Page_041.jpg
681b99ca74fda9a212a4ecbd52dcc9d4
67c346cf83f0e61e5c87705622168580081fb20c
F20101124_AABWFW schmid_a_Page_024.jpg
4a31909d85050e1f75c0e8fa987b8d6b
c28e436f06e7d24f8d6941407468d982e27b8de1
76046 F20101124_AABWGM schmid_a_Page_042.jpg
201f4b9863b9f80b89c817d99db60588
44f222478d8cf1dcf89f680c5c22a011ffcf5a7f
71145 F20101124_AABWFX schmid_a_Page_025.jpg
f5a1ec50d43543fdd1cfbd903fa60720
8df3e31a4911dff551ffba119643a1ae7ba445a4
70464 F20101124_AABWHA schmid_a_Page_057.jpg
cbc3596c750205b81b4a563484e87489
5d477c4c711e1deb17ec3aed1dbec98dbca12c74
75052 F20101124_AABWGN schmid_a_Page_043.jpg
18d79fe8c46d354b43c3ff57ef2931b4
d09143e51ca1aa71b6dc2f0f547a34fd94ffca36
76206 F20101124_AABWFY schmid_a_Page_026.jpg
322a1e501bd5708e184e6d18b947a4eb
d59398f061feb3d4f3ed71f44f4fddb6550d1cfe
69446 F20101124_AABWHB schmid_a_Page_058.jpg
32ea00fe3d487582c19334c25e0a37b6
5afccf6855606a922295828e14d9a65e9402ac1c
69389 F20101124_AABWGO schmid_a_Page_044.jpg
c2d45b8a89e53fef12f2bdc19442ccac
f7c32ea79b159749cafd059f9b0a6f6d1a9f9e4e
71528 F20101124_AABWFZ schmid_a_Page_028.jpg
38d5c2e9dd556ff28e7be6caa579ffb4
bdb10ad831c8ce75bcc40b33ca015b322b0f5171
72865 F20101124_AABWHC schmid_a_Page_059.jpg
c2ca84bb694975ce06a65ecacf08e2be
7c8bc2c050ffc44ebfc4c193804dbe259651ee59
76195 F20101124_AABWGP schmid_a_Page_045.jpg
8e432a1622349c38f6db1aedd8233235
d07a9e91475309d0505ec1ba76f843289f481c4e
44206 F20101124_AABWHD schmid_a_Page_060.jpg
eea30af483685b434fef0c03b4dcb5fc
f1c9b198a906a7daedaa398ab6c62e07a1dafd84
73991 F20101124_AABWGQ schmid_a_Page_046.jpg
ca14f88ed3e179cb963a175ea3f6d844
c182d95e1acef15afed57281cd8573332bc33b25
65328 F20101124_AABWHE schmid_a_Page_061.jpg
05d82a744e134dae2e9e326dceff0ffc
ee3dfd9dc6d373de035ada8942648593ea1cc6c9
44803 F20101124_AABWGR schmid_a_Page_047.jpg
dc60f97842d0e084704d0b8428290c00
e558de32d23d57ca201e5be7890e2028b737d41e
74655 F20101124_AABWHF schmid_a_Page_062.jpg
2b65e84ceb490502c08d5bf86731ffe3
b3794a689e14e92640e3d908e9e64d991c8f2552
59900 F20101124_AABWGS schmid_a_Page_048.jpg
3533a6550d441a55003b81515d3ec7a3
867b5e09cf301bda2529b096642dbd41cd61dd0d
68410 F20101124_AABWHG schmid_a_Page_063.jpg
4ba0d79560751327c3d8bc83b5aea093
8ca012096073f7e8d4f35d51806c5a72cc3a319c
74743 F20101124_AABWGT schmid_a_Page_049.jpg
401c87b3fff1c0cd5934baa1132c6e3d
19f06afea08be336c4542ff9d4dc0fb3ab079233
69233 F20101124_AABWHH schmid_a_Page_064.jpg
f9da74cb0534178361330b227dbc882f
1558a690d43cf30a7e91a686349b46a493eb9348
70434 F20101124_AABWGU schmid_a_Page_050.jpg
65fca1e3ac4b1ad1d1027f1dc537c87d
05db2f8254c090bcf5d91f5ab7c62ae3e57709b5
70465 F20101124_AABWHI schmid_a_Page_065.jpg
7b9552708751daf9a0fdcb2e7c155d9f
6aff8d49dff2ebe660f93d7b3f13a12491929f5c
74506 F20101124_AABWGV schmid_a_Page_051.jpg
a1ab5687a7b4df546a302b285ad13c85
37d645d57dfceedec43b4e7c71a3624e4e12e204
65753 F20101124_AABWHJ schmid_a_Page_066.jpg
0ffa08bc7051d5a8af3e59f15d5f2f75
aa896ce295662b892e21f9c5ed28b27bcefbe26c
72995 F20101124_AABWGW schmid_a_Page_052.jpg
2c9206aa719d4b8b674e625b60db5fe5
c9ffabf12a59209a6b7191634f9ee5227aecbbe9
64511 F20101124_AABWHK schmid_a_Page_067.jpg
a093a0e563404947f2504b455d09e71f
3c12965c180c7c5a39516e0a23ba4939a21aa0e4
73195 F20101124_AABWHL schmid_a_Page_068.jpg
923318a4cbe1e0c76b2c223157c4aa43
fcfa74ef6c8f07ae26c4f3f3933351425c134f2b
69167 F20101124_AABWGX schmid_a_Page_053.jpg
746c12edee7c209311b738e58e2fc5c7
08496ce961ac5bff063781a3180828d1ecd39f80
71840 F20101124_AABWIA schmid_a_Page_083.jpg
60628e10c6c120afafd215696afd44c3
9495901960448ec19f32d229f4444ca3fcb4c829
67784 F20101124_AABWHM schmid_a_Page_069.jpg
4d90fdefe72134dfa664e35a5d9dd441
b27ddff906abd7dde3e39ced0e96151a04795755
69099 F20101124_AABWGY schmid_a_Page_054.jpg
e2b1e1efd4f45e974b159a5e0885da95
4179544288db9c53fab99c51b983077f44290b7a
74019 F20101124_AABWIB schmid_a_Page_084.jpg
cf6eac51b132817cc541927a487cd10c
50390e04c9ee213e97d5cc15780dcff3b9933b10
79539 F20101124_AABWHN schmid_a_Page_070.jpg
48d438ce6f0c69fec4f3b24027b6f196
a0f82fcedec7357b2ce4808f0d3a6bc25ebf61d4
72897 F20101124_AABWGZ schmid_a_Page_056.jpg
cf64f45704697b24033888310bb1ccc2
1e3bbeb8456553507354e799158f065a8409d10a
73356 F20101124_AABWIC schmid_a_Page_085.jpg
c023eec4c96f0384b6db6084d8d7e919
310147594be3ec918c721849419ebf0fd12dad32
76549 F20101124_AABWHO schmid_a_Page_071.jpg
e2a581560758d51c1570538303761219
84d56900d5d9b8cb8f84276a8773b91412c56d16
69234 F20101124_AABWID schmid_a_Page_086.jpg
7cd0cdf90507c567f7f8672c2dde4b34
b32c4ad4a8306a66dbdc149beb3e4cea3708ba5f
75116 F20101124_AABWHP schmid_a_Page_072.jpg
c6056ac76245e494bfe290a7cbd93d88
374820d86304c42de2b539efd16c6e121d8b3c61
68647 F20101124_AABWIE schmid_a_Page_087.jpg
ae2a7c1a5f6e0229edd209eb5a4c0436
90474d92473bbe587d6da33200cfd78357487af1
70985 F20101124_AABWHQ schmid_a_Page_073.jpg
070f6936e0591e89f5108b19e7da97f5
bb9038d1a13a8658b948ace649b4d77bc6132d25
69618 F20101124_AABWIF schmid_a_Page_088.jpg
7891072aedf0f889b5a7444419f26664
f083b8544c44204ec9e89870e8b1c7d637357be3
72816 F20101124_AABWHR schmid_a_Page_074.jpg
bada9fbc7d8058f021b13a4e1fbb1614
b87dd38e7c25d74e5cbe9b8efefae67d1f0cf3f7
12632 F20101124_AABWIG schmid_a_Page_089.jpg
07016ef5e0e1bf5f000cff5a5d85722a
af7dce6902a1256f55a7bc6fe17b30aed97e92f8
75403 F20101124_AABWHS schmid_a_Page_075.jpg
b2f097cc032409e9bf80b9af5155d9e1
f6e2a6fed32cf12c2696611b34c02a2ebff03eb4
64769 F20101124_AABWIH schmid_a_Page_090.jpg
c35be44d5755831dc8aa536c5c7d5e42
41e0b0f127fe9ed9ed3524e695be9407f77d29b9
70824 F20101124_AABWHT schmid_a_Page_076.jpg
956a6db89d96064e9b5d90c1e6ea584f
17de8ce0ba59b07787748cbcdc99dd9c2996b3a4
67830 F20101124_AABWII schmid_a_Page_091.jpg
c70cc6e6bda9acd342d8d419d2aa6b0e
93f7fde1d0b2cd8dc97ffb26e8c9b878884ff062
69616 F20101124_AABWHU schmid_a_Page_077.jpg
28b099533eeefdb1add7d23a68adb82a
9e23a6cd692994fadbda4365b839abb4137bc68d
72244 F20101124_AABWIJ schmid_a_Page_092.jpg
9b180998b33fc8a5b5846df4c4c8f0ea
bfe6ef542619396e2a5377a45696b60066c51e78
71675 F20101124_AABWHV schmid_a_Page_078.jpg
30fe0c493536ad81a213d08fd4bd4052
2ce6aec0db5d6574e8dbcfa0f35e52d13929de20
12708 F20101124_AABWIK schmid_a_Page_094.jpg
ce9d5f65cdbdd25eca99a187525fff6c
3748bf4fbf935d762211477bb9dcbd0be13b1587
72255 F20101124_AABWHW schmid_a_Page_079.jpg
96a1c1715f5bb66b312c06f3f7c3b3b5
f0f896b969c8f7fad1cb2370e7bf1963aea6058b
37671 F20101124_AABWIL schmid_a_Page_095.jpg
eca07a175c096fcd2ff1aa85504e3506
a4f52c7dd9f411b35b5b3c96c00898725a3d5835
73950 F20101124_AABWHX schmid_a_Page_080.jpg
743bfc5e57cb903e92b65603f35d27e9
a2ee3901e9ff7f37629359dc37b014697a870823
79342 F20101124_AABWJA schmid_a_Page_111.jpg
39df8114f9edb32ee5268752edab0acc
12bfa51a3183b5c811212a1f711f78c5aea6ae29
38366 F20101124_AABWIM schmid_a_Page_096.jpg
1700e72a0d3b9f5bb393187cba984db9
bed2d7684651e82777741a16205c190a96d14168
81928 F20101124_AABWJB schmid_a_Page_112.jpg
fd67938512e215b09e273ffba4dd0d9d
cd81e8054243ed360223800ccb5ae92c662b9671
39783 F20101124_AABWIN schmid_a_Page_097.jpg
b8fa69d70c6a2fb9a6a1a53cc8e3b8cd
1b2f44ffe92f2f000c700f1b069a14002b95a224
70038 F20101124_AABWHY schmid_a_Page_081.jpg
14f29a17983aa08b7ec66f24e7e5a6ad
32cee8217f19cae699b440479cd8197a3c2947c0
79141 F20101124_AABWJC schmid_a_Page_113.jpg
3e2d622662a59522c6145a4095322447
1a16676bce748cd954ea1e645815246428116701
65887 F20101124_AABWIO schmid_a_Page_098.jpg
628a8734a37d499ecdfbe6b97a737b6a
52872f8383cd185253e11263fe653f253c40cadf
73062 F20101124_AABWHZ schmid_a_Page_082.jpg
34f2230ecdcda2d5a6a2d1ce6c774d42
909926ae252aaa1ecc54984e0df0d262833731fc
93847 F20101124_AABWIP schmid_a_Page_099.jpg
11fedea405e23710470412524689cecb
7ff821b2221a2ee8d8fa554a4e13fc396a50468c
79875 F20101124_AABWJD schmid_a_Page_114.jpg
f47b431a6de67f9415eb99806910034c
1e8af78864433a483500d579a186f40d998b26ee
76924 F20101124_AABWIQ schmid_a_Page_101.jpg
acc5b8dcd1d463c377a7e1b9198c3690
f3e39b65dbcb6206c64db37349bb1dd96c35624a
84347 F20101124_AABWJE schmid_a_Page_115.jpg
62166fba5f785b34f4351dbc781dfd54
758ccd5b7666514e3e1e7e9f469b523f0bdb0099
85068 F20101124_AABWIR schmid_a_Page_102.jpg
d9a9e7b9b0cc3a5113018a1cd14ae8e1
854984c46550707620da7a26b6cf17912197c2f6
82570 F20101124_AABWJF schmid_a_Page_116.jpg
82888e5dab70589bdd7b03ac63c43e38
5d2ce021e6ad91841642f8580b0ff89b82041bd2
84462 F20101124_AABWIS schmid_a_Page_103.jpg
35b0b36b5416a4f204475365de347050
6451eb37b5c813d881b7e486ee5b4079f5246ffc
26058 F20101124_AABWJG schmid_a_Page_117.jpg
6c86f37b78ad2d8afaa89d3ab8ba21cf
e73e97c6320e56bfd523833d044f7f546a8bad04
90716 F20101124_AABWIT schmid_a_Page_104.jpg
a1cc1c990a6f3f78a3f43275b7fc795b
8a661feb11686b9de28f44b61c11dff1553855ca
43561 F20101124_AABWJH schmid_a_Page_118.jpg
97c2a19862ffde930affd2b434871e6b
c3f728b16d07a5beb7da142a352a0448fb4ee068
81289 F20101124_AABWIU schmid_a_Page_105.jpg
0f316048e8fa822df97e500b4656bb0c
7d0b0e30b54c51633c192669b326d99b6c8d73b8
23210 F20101124_AABWJI schmid_a_Page_001.jp2
8276d4e533befd875dc6fe7bd87431a8
f796829b9a3a873fec1cc8c68ff5344046355f24
82991 F20101124_AABWIV schmid_a_Page_106.jpg
9eade86553b61fdbe5bd1d1ef9fffaf8
ee018e0a6439c56f217461cee72ad1b91df82777
5838 F20101124_AABWJJ schmid_a_Page_002.jp2
c919878b203d3ae190cf35f282242f03
613e4a6f775f639ec0515c77d162f8d8ec365058
77577 F20101124_AABWIW schmid_a_Page_107.jpg
8fe8391c6d1a599ac7c5e4fc17ac173c
27f1c0dfec77cad0e6d8b43292757b47775e0ffd
7976 F20101124_AABWJK schmid_a_Page_003.jp2
13dc1b6b64167f9c0971e651c5874854
a18816b374df636428d4adb0a1ec1df3c7cf7cbd
79411 F20101124_AABWIX schmid_a_Page_108.jpg
d1270dddc43021e86aa05423abccac86
c5c59eddf3f5e7b74ab578fb46571adbab2e1919
91490 F20101124_AABWJL schmid_a_Page_004.jp2
322ca95fc5f98cc3e6fb06ef0bed8840
a62c01ad34274f9221e4e2e782c9758dd5e54230
78656 F20101124_AABWIY schmid_a_Page_109.jpg
0f0954b778bd7ce4cee1e328adebbd22
f68b2ed3eef65c7ed2645702a289ea127715ce85
26614 F20101124_AABWKA schmid_a_Page_021.jp2
3ee7379fbbfc9a597888a1570fd5e957
2a9a858bd9c45244db6713f5ebb48db182fbaf7d
64728 F20101124_AABWJM schmid_a_Page_005.jp2
12e0277ac6ee7f6699f817f464656a69
647d22de7dec24a906d8e2164502dbccf671b40b
95851 F20101124_AABWKB schmid_a_Page_022.jp2
65780a45aefa33bda82f932aaeea2b66
3204a432314f931afd62878880d369e57e0c3924
1051921 F20101124_AABWJN schmid_a_Page_006.jp2
10a27fccf70e7e486b6c1f979ae45480
dd958a698a73fcbde6643224f12d438dabd40fa6
79359 F20101124_AABWIZ schmid_a_Page_110.jpg
553da4bafa343f70222d2c63bf8d48ff
de61aa8e26bed9484490c008334423cbbbdb3bb4
101969 F20101124_AABWKC schmid_a_Page_024.jp2
842f5d19f3f548524dbf317fc6bc4458
4b65aee4a05d27cf6be168d69a4c23b8b58a9fab
1051986 F20101124_AABWJO schmid_a_Page_007.jp2
872d7eb967d0795f4d262053fa227942
32f2f1e7cd99d7cae53b3817894d8e01557d0963
103677 F20101124_AABWKD schmid_a_Page_025.jp2
b86fcdb9ad42a3e748f467216f5a5400
bc3db8c5aa241700fa8117816ea4db9001964894
1051971 F20101124_AABWJP schmid_a_Page_008.jp2
668bbf2a2cb50b31f20da7087d5bea01
9c0c05690946ac3ca140d13b96207c309b1ad749
1051951 F20101124_AABWKE schmid_a_Page_026.jp2
78084c982524564499f773255a4dfd17
7f39c6667ce453eb1c4e352f6f251cf97d1290e2
F20101124_AABWJQ schmid_a_Page_009.jp2
4ca6c00199b8944449b35d7a6d88a443
a3c523b3af9425dd1940d07dd9a633a7e94b837a
95260 F20101124_AABWKF schmid_a_Page_027.jp2
e3d920272d490ea607f2fa68c6b2d9d1
c0c4a8c2daa2387f58ccbbe821c64667dffae0d0
207846 F20101124_AABWJR schmid_a_Page_010.jp2
f21b8f2c02a460ef6c7341314db5d477
4263994c7c0e194ab43e8b319167edd61b4270f4
107110 F20101124_AABWKG schmid_a_Page_028.jp2
a9b3b4947428a45e8f23363359986e66
ceb42e4984a37e8b518b65810d7e4578d8c8f71f
175003 F20101124_AABWJS schmid_a_Page_011.jp2
634c0fd43f798b958ff7f45242010d0b
aa874866e144480e08d037379e36c0b3654dbf34
110271 F20101124_AABWKH schmid_a_Page_029.jp2
66925d5dc97d4f95621956a5d417b250
57c9f3b694dd03bb077ea5d501b6eca712c7ebe9
83630 F20101124_AABWJT schmid_a_Page_013.jp2
867f07929cd996799e5e9d00610b02d9
7e98e3c654fe8a8b9b06633a31d1bf2e0a469df1
1051926 F20101124_AABWKI schmid_a_Page_030.jp2
b264178bc43459c97b41a1e347e686ad
188d119b9365a8a5d41b765345aedb397bea8b05
99541 F20101124_AABWJU schmid_a_Page_014.jp2
3a4de41d95ef2f6af3ab6696b6b01199
8ed6f20750cdf6501de2065036ed702e5cac0469
103754 F20101124_AABWKJ schmid_a_Page_031.jp2
2a4a8ddfcec2474eb03de14ac0add28a
6e5075d4d3a59a23323e9692a02cb9504dac2c89
112279 F20101124_AABWJV schmid_a_Page_015.jp2
138989bfbe40a1eb32d137c74e6d1cb0
ecc56bb2f90f52fff1835ebf698aa46597f3a0c2
105001 F20101124_AABWKK schmid_a_Page_032.jp2
16eecfc7031241bdd5ba3ef7515eb7a9
16368ae7fc417e69294670205b58d361d8d2fec4
107998 F20101124_AABWJW schmid_a_Page_016.jp2
14852e73803d1e209d581e49f5f9cfe8
9291439a3c1a950b55479d74071088eb07260938
112891 F20101124_AABWKL schmid_a_Page_033.jp2
5385d9ea989f1523d31d260996f58559
7d6eb2c81cc969920a846c7b211de096efd7e925
83896 F20101124_AABWJX schmid_a_Page_017.jp2
ae5499e2998a6af86c8da150c44f6916
2dc64ce50af07f53c8f94296fa374c786a502dc4
107847 F20101124_AABWLA schmid_a_Page_050.jp2
a656ea5c2ba7e38c0410e2430c759c01
43bff7485cb29d2888f41209d2212d53f3c8b219
1051964 F20101124_AABWKM schmid_a_Page_034.jp2
66ee81a2c2e7c0f432ec98d3f659b8cb
587d124539abdd9052f2e624d31f49a9060ab523
107187 F20101124_AABWJY schmid_a_Page_019.jp2
8ec0b96faf1ab3e9e1ce9175c3b2c43e
001113981629f82c3ba65437ca5ec5a62b74885f
111170 F20101124_AABWLB schmid_a_Page_051.jp2
2433da1ae364a19630964072fa95d7b4
8bab3dca5e1ce8ffebeed16bd02a18eee1d827ab
1019016 F20101124_AABWKN schmid_a_Page_035.jp2
b05a927cacdbd958b2a23eda6feac3f8
4e1a04b124cc0fed28c936cebffa2d84c057740d
816099 F20101124_AABWJZ schmid_a_Page_020.jp2
f9c2c857d4fc60e13175a312fa39183d
e57610f633c796540ac6a6dc7cd8abccc7b55ffd
110700 F20101124_AABWLC schmid_a_Page_052.jp2
c695600fad5bc3d17f5699e92094bbed
abc12243c50869e5b3346900e9580210bc6247c8
111676 F20101124_AABWKO schmid_a_Page_036.jp2
ee85416d356645c725866529fcafc27f
001863e98560be0a4cebcb48940d8b95041fd5c3
106450 F20101124_AABWLD schmid_a_Page_053.jp2
5c2fab7a5642439b3ce73ebdd0a190bf
b4b64688a1a43dab91652af9aa74fa2135a03816
102778 F20101124_AABWKP schmid_a_Page_037.jp2
797a492d05a8e9b115c57c082122e030
8d43cb9375fc2611f5ebe8f0272a60e985a1fa61
108119 F20101124_AABWLE schmid_a_Page_054.jp2
c901194b7b2f33111cf1ad0dd11f5f56
17ffea537810267521c0c49afb70b0d5599486a0
1051955 F20101124_AABWKQ schmid_a_Page_038.jp2
f11554cfbd8375da414d97c2d4410d46
f21c3dbc8da0fb3934550fd17693a33cb7ede146
122340 F20101124_AABWLF schmid_a_Page_055.jp2
cc51f2aafb3287d1e367c49bd7b6572d
15e7196ddf4c4d6c0d7973e8d7a2474a3502b2c5
1051919 F20101124_AABWKR schmid_a_Page_039.jp2
6137839ff08e90c5cbe0249e05d209c0
2a481c22ffe0497e14be173cef0fcba9ddad967d
106692 F20101124_AABWLG schmid_a_Page_056.jp2
ebe827a03df7b0c8af8c4863e4a4eab6
c9761762a722840c97206648d12fe259a16f05c6
106532 F20101124_AABWKS schmid_a_Page_040.jp2
49217082945e54ed60af134a3f29d733
8cf540bf023f43d0cece461c8eafaf377738d43f
104053 F20101124_AABWLH schmid_a_Page_057.jp2
d3e02110fe6becf2ab54f431deaf66b0
1de3644350c4268a404ea9beb53fdadb2ec2dbf2
1051984 F20101124_AABWKT schmid_a_Page_041.jp2
256aaa11755139fcd6631a73404da028
4af4ca91a6dc262fc8e62c624a43dbe2048c9cef
106385 F20101124_AABWLI schmid_a_Page_058.jp2
a1739cf5f011c816dcee620629d30a80
2ac7c63f412c5bbc127b48fabb63981c1ecf7036
115582 F20101124_AABWKU schmid_a_Page_042.jp2
de372a15c2a8f3701985d9b63aaaa254
406ec184cb47b9e31d393eba6700b6b08b2ad537
109375 F20101124_AABWLJ schmid_a_Page_059.jp2
a0be522ee953f6ee666f224b002aba3a
117b1aa827b78edd2d31a891c46f6dee731c2c51
112922 F20101124_AABWKV schmid_a_Page_043.jp2
d244c22a889107dc0e374cf556a66350
576975534b377c32afe61fa566f6ab72764ea621
63986 F20101124_AABWLK schmid_a_Page_060.jp2
38a2d5df4de5eeb0738c747a1584e0c6
57b6d6599811d8684a5acb1bc0a9e116abfe2ed0
106658 F20101124_AABWKW schmid_a_Page_044.jp2
f9f4b2ee438ce8f1ef4171bb84065cf5
b03d21985f1a0b167df0b08949c174777a89e7e8
95595 F20101124_AABWLL schmid_a_Page_061.jp2
853ddfeb3c458eee710c13abf0a7c75b
7b7584529d9c8a39d206fa496e33f7b034562c3e
1043291 F20101124_AABWKX schmid_a_Page_046.jp2
94be837060b263658d65e0bfa7f4181b
cd82737132135df0b2b140b574cad23c2825c370
112270 F20101124_AABWLM schmid_a_Page_062.jp2
eeacb11ac710e30c40d1f1861f39b813
ee5bea0874057c215c5c87cf8cc76fdbd8bdafb7
65327 F20101124_AABWKY schmid_a_Page_047.jp2
1b424dbd0965083d6c270b65722b676d
e18be5cde8a098a3d6325ba0d9e450340e032ffc
104767 F20101124_AABWMA schmid_a_Page_077.jp2
49493f66a98bfab0b55e3e6872786723
994c69955afe18c6f05126c55b7048f3f2760a35
103795 F20101124_AABWLN schmid_a_Page_063.jp2
2a49262400035b91bec3b5b6c10068a6
5bac44a11ca927457a558301faabac26201ff72a
87403 F20101124_AABWKZ schmid_a_Page_048.jp2
50b90ff534cfd469e861d41b664d3cd3
23ef3a290ef0f5bc80567cf8b80207d338198602
106214 F20101124_AABWMB schmid_a_Page_078.jp2
fde34620bea109740e03a9d85d981219
842035dc7d16acbe544c8902e103ae81a10ed715
106807 F20101124_AABWLO schmid_a_Page_064.jp2
d03b326e02a8a224d7c00d5faac9fde5
f6300f2bc2c9023dbb948477b96566c438f07765
108204 F20101124_AABWMC schmid_a_Page_079.jp2
6dd2b871bc0f592396a5729d1da83499
5ebf5f50f8de990933d4b15d5df99342873fb9c0
107780 F20101124_AABWLP schmid_a_Page_065.jp2
95089e19be6ff71551ed5e135d61af8d
58d03d7ca08a834262a4edcd8f7068edf153fd58
110262 F20101124_AABWMD schmid_a_Page_080.jp2
c8a2d98ffd5d565f3fde144cc2ace141
2e4508c3667c4f27fd63531bd7b989512726525f
97081 F20101124_AABWLQ schmid_a_Page_066.jp2
37b15a4f3990d78f236b5e19f4a2b537
a778c138c515d7248316a41fcdce9a17785a74d4
102811 F20101124_AABWME schmid_a_Page_081.jp2
a7f056fd895158f8e1afa71e56bba2da
d663e6961d6934ccf0a8e1b0260f821aaaa16b1e
97442 F20101124_AABWLR schmid_a_Page_067.jp2
6e54216c8d7a37562e32e519e54698ed
079036d9f347a11a5b69d382aec007640ce83d9f
108651 F20101124_AABWMF schmid_a_Page_082.jp2
64a279d2c58eea982dd68bf995967fdb
b9677fc31f219413da079548c8ea7cde0ed91002
99536 F20101124_AABWLS schmid_a_Page_069.jp2
878f462c4b8698981aa2a88fff04aa6d
5ced2066c4994ca74ebf43183011f2542cca0f2b
111973 F20101124_AABWMG schmid_a_Page_084.jp2
cf698b5eaf3dd38127f049ea52ad844d
077ed90c1c2afa9d07f515a8905f615852580e71
117317 F20101124_AABWLT schmid_a_Page_070.jp2
e6fb54c59a8e774874cc1ef5377afa85
dc7a188d0f1d741d8819f2c281ec008c7abf3ff8
112423 F20101124_AABWMH schmid_a_Page_085.jp2
8bec144881f57c58cd33e0ce0ab0b0ef
e3e63a52dc670657f78dd409d3d008c1f7104696
1026449 F20101124_AABWLU schmid_a_Page_071.jp2
d6305c47e47ca64e24674381695004a9
bfcd88356a9f12d49813e9c832a4c68df49f15cb
104933 F20101124_AABWMI schmid_a_Page_086.jp2
d0cc6caf56194d2b4c372f7531acbb5d
f018bd8efa1487a1c29be7e3efd25187d78d17ad
95139 F20101124_AABWLV schmid_a_Page_072.jp2
8c2754958f4a752f6c8ce9727d0a5bb2
a28d884fec1f1ca4b5eb2b5984a813396be1410b
104457 F20101124_AABWMJ schmid_a_Page_087.jp2
29de6aec26fe5e9f4c79e6213585fe01
ef4104f12c94e1527faea54fd5f99ecd37c37c97
105611 F20101124_AABWLW schmid_a_Page_073.jp2
8229ba68bc55fe3a7f37441e1177e8b8
3f41dec59e1b77f42681ca73d3fc22ea3658ba4d
104798 F20101124_AABWMK schmid_a_Page_088.jp2
5b27df4defba777025a8d43447ca01b6
ef33689785490ac82cfd9cf40b4f13f7dbe681b0
106670 F20101124_AABWLX schmid_a_Page_074.jp2
8fb2f064400281c3221bd54c6e26dde4
d443824731c692ac0b319ee4be37067b6b5acd08
10697 F20101124_AABWML schmid_a_Page_089.jp2
a6a596da41d5e4fc47c148425d730af3
4c883dad7345b5b201539cc2ca8140b563d1d363
111264 F20101124_AABWLY schmid_a_Page_075.jp2
ffbb4a1ad83d9a24691fa34542180902
fca7488bbcbadac3bb67dc1db4769db4154e761c
119163 F20101124_AABWNA schmid_a_Page_105.jp2
2d65349893a762c05e95600965974522
61efe42fe51001d922356df307424565d01c71ac
97745 F20101124_AABWMM schmid_a_Page_090.jp2
14cc3342c7ac5ed5319ae07827ee2a96
10c555a8398af728b210752c9db844e4a4e4713c
105870 F20101124_AABWLZ schmid_a_Page_076.jp2
466c5be731f9eb62199d8edf46e191f4
61d83597bb84cc70415455139e1c6802aeaf6129
122226 F20101124_AABWNB schmid_a_Page_106.jp2
54a3e1b35529e5fd1046d033e2e34967
beb1806de01fc5effd29c3696004e2638e041022
103467 F20101124_AABWMN schmid_a_Page_091.jp2
3282096524c1887e05ade53eb9aea8bc
345cbdca1fc4f82c272b82d75400fe72e2d81e80
115973 F20101124_AABWNC schmid_a_Page_107.jp2
b3a1c6a94b4579b5fd22528e7865511d
3e077c5dd1d50f0230b34e01618d5060325b16dc
109017 F20101124_AABWMO schmid_a_Page_092.jp2
e1ebf1451d38c50998d7e06c374059c0
aedad7361db5cf86264ab7b26468c26397df1370
118614 F20101124_AABWND schmid_a_Page_108.jp2
d3316309b3a0ee454d4946529efe12c3
27606a0d4aa57e56948d0063ec6f5aabecfec38a
94731 F20101124_AABWMP schmid_a_Page_093.jp2
4ec13d0d9c18a207feb02706e2eed612
6c61a1a8c8fa6f016a78be3742c13d52a7499bcd
118640 F20101124_AABWNE schmid_a_Page_109.jp2
574095a1118d6516864e5e8a86af6f33
83ea1fd6bdd9d92995e1f32b77eecbf58ab9fe73
8710 F20101124_AABWMQ schmid_a_Page_094.jp2
b9edaae08eb3ac1c80a5cfa4ecc7132c
6aa3b063e80be7830858e28bc1194512a83f2157
118078 F20101124_AABWNF schmid_a_Page_110.jp2
2fcea8736d2fb9e5bb14db86c4537cce
61b5109d386ded1ad81abb4714a5830f436c24b9
96314 F20101124_AABWMR schmid_a_Page_095.jp2
15dabc23bd35fc00840aca2e52c2a45a
6fa02ae5647a08728d8dd31f427d1726fda2d898
117350 F20101124_AABWNG schmid_a_Page_111.jp2
8bee59450afd868387ebbaa32a53eefe
98857b69fd1ea52440266caf323f1a5e21ae2b5f
95478 F20101124_AABWMS schmid_a_Page_096.jp2
df64b2015192b2d40b12caaae9767c8d
9ab1ead5f8a25deacb5569d5f7f5af4a1d74e81f
120223 F20101124_AABWNH schmid_a_Page_112.jp2
d79cdc490ef0b63b078932a986099019
4149a5a3d1ee9724c06ad723f37f20dbcbde79e6
103720 F20101124_AABWMT schmid_a_Page_097.jp2
015e8bbe490c32008529cfa5772f0913
8f646f6a03d3f94d2f7669a4cbf70b106f962472
118252 F20101124_AABWNI schmid_a_Page_113.jp2
7808407c0846f87553ac7c45ada79b02
bdef3067a5c9dcdb6b4d5892f1de79b95229643e
94267 F20101124_AABWMU schmid_a_Page_098.jp2
bbb86485dc0f0b289479524b74d4bcc5
826e64917def50273e3b4a0d59447fc201657f2f
120222 F20101124_AABWNJ schmid_a_Page_114.jp2
edc740688e59d1cab07c35c345ef4eb9
676973e0c1a1d45ac87ad28afebe9c95eaa912f7
131303 F20101124_AABWMV schmid_a_Page_100.jp2
7b7739feab8e1dff5d38c58f880176c7
0742abe2f5e5fadcb26d57c349359a2b652697e8
123467 F20101124_AABWNK schmid_a_Page_115.jp2
9a981e0fab3f98a34d68814f96a2e50b
bb137ad4c63696c927eae93a2720f498f03ed87e
115028 F20101124_AABWMW schmid_a_Page_101.jp2
ee37eae4d7a0ba2a2d2464d9892ce0b3
9c78ad3dc61ec3fc455997b3c1a7434fb6914e48
119003 F20101124_AABWNL schmid_a_Page_116.jp2
78138c254e5fc1b095e0363a275b79de
28471c8c496a153cb2325ec25f890f209ad531d8
1051929 F20101124_AABWMX schmid_a_Page_102.jp2
22155f28098942a880907d125f722e98
001bcd452715977f5e68ca26f8a00af799995cf1
33371 F20101124_AABWNM schmid_a_Page_117.jp2
edabf246e76fe1b74d152ebbbe538cbf
bea7d1cd05be72f95b2c7ded9d609194e6c9fa60
124380 F20101124_AABWMY schmid_a_Page_103.jp2
226d50c92faf45a2998b9cc62effc363
0a30ea023fe9e70a4315a7c69f218b96a55211bc
F20101124_AABWOA schmid_a_Page_014.tif
531b6790d34328efe094ef601a917b9e
70e875612845e636e8e8cf4373a75df4c69053b4
60567 F20101124_AABWNN schmid_a_Page_118.jp2
1eaefdef93a47cdd2479b48f61011bd3
8f2b389dc7c4d938af5de50c3b1c2db58f446111
1051941 F20101124_AABWMZ schmid_a_Page_104.jp2
f4ace771b86df1962c059ed4d2651ee8
0fc9b6e088d985518be218306d08765f192dfe7c
F20101124_AABWOB schmid_a_Page_015.tif
46c8b7f02578d7c25e3b602d3a8ad1fc
07214b305185e8286e441f86037ff0062bed29dc
F20101124_AABWNO schmid_a_Page_001.tif
5cf77489165d368f17f830d9631110b1
1b7330d0f83a0673e1d4d2daf9cc5421440fd7ae
F20101124_AABWOC schmid_a_Page_016.tif
a11766b1e0775703cc759b7becf74725
a80ec9ae979b0963df344c31a79585226bd26c2c
F20101124_AABWNP schmid_a_Page_002.tif
925196e9a918918bbfd198f6a388878a
8da8e0ae57892617496482b75872e286e133b545
F20101124_AABWOD schmid_a_Page_017.tif
36f25d7992e92d4701c28f9dad636397
b4dae907257ce43657c5d6f5925eefd0fabd156e
F20101124_AABWNQ schmid_a_Page_004.tif
d3f1f1148450d1d29fc0aeb8f62b40db
a5640dddce965da128dabaa094aa2ae37fbb7de8
F20101124_AABWOE schmid_a_Page_018.tif
c1a5fc608694ff120e139e2a1d147e56
38122a41d5d3d11a9e9efb15d80510569363883d
F20101124_AABWNR schmid_a_Page_005.tif
a9bb8732ff34728c81359ccf2e16cd22
24ac06c39460b7835bc56bdb48c73d5eb8e6c1f1
F20101124_AABWOF schmid_a_Page_019.tif
d0c11be913ca9d7733e07e9f5d21474d
af2680d769b3a57dacad4530ced530f129d88a05
25271604 F20101124_AABWNS schmid_a_Page_006.tif
391480396e85220d7c52aac4c9150731
cf46256ecb0499afdf59c7155cb936f4f76c8c97
F20101124_AABWOG schmid_a_Page_020.tif
9e12cd06acb7381fde97e754268b9f35
08099a6f8a5e944d16bbe7a828e0cf31372d8961
F20101124_AABWNT schmid_a_Page_007.tif
15d130313e83d1616e2d81d93b9a81cc
b70c2a76423fe517932de35bf0a8f7334c08c6a1
F20101124_AABWOH schmid_a_Page_021.tif
17b9b092b0d89be9dab31dcee716ff4e
065261dd620bf0977adb11e09e9b48ef4335d704
F20101124_AABWNU schmid_a_Page_008.tif
9e80ab05a9cd4a2b91bc8f179e2beca7
0368ecebca0bf663cbd0ccd90b5dbbf1f08ab8b2
F20101124_AABWOI schmid_a_Page_022.tif
eb15eda30bed42c4754ecca5c1f8d0e5
1f177842cd7c1fe7ac262102d77e9f47dcb09f04
F20101124_AABWNV schmid_a_Page_009.tif
a374a0624066027d9082c2b0846b9c44
96ad7b1e8a4e9ecca029534961ec32da508f315e
F20101124_AABWOJ schmid_a_Page_023.tif
f5e2ed3cd23499fc8a1ee361aa38f925
eafcb00e0a8d817120632eaa197f3553b89d4fca
F20101124_AABWNW schmid_a_Page_010.tif
0d9bc0d4af5c189e163a9b90ac4fccee
4aba21d526e3d6fc781313d044368c2793ad1163
F20101124_AABWOK schmid_a_Page_024.tif
d395b1299cafe7c29edebed620ad399b
f9a996fc4a6d58ce4d20357b291edf89794c0ed8
F20101124_AABWNX schmid_a_Page_011.tif
0a0cfdc2f2b4922090a44a6c0eb2d157
db39262a5b0082f9405c96f5ca15c4574ce29ad0
F20101124_AABWOL schmid_a_Page_025.tif
a0c92918810be348dd1255fbed21d37a
6131e40a847009529cd982f75fd3255057a8a7b8
F20101124_AABWNY schmid_a_Page_012.tif
8b2c182b4af74137b8fd445386f9865e
8a85d31085579ee3f708803bdb66a3b4b9c696e9
F20101124_AABWPA schmid_a_Page_042.tif
d10bb51c5a2477cdcc940ed6660e8bad
52d0460dc009cc976668a2449ce1353b8f6a9d4f
F20101124_AABWOM schmid_a_Page_026.tif
f4b73448f945b419b5e23d6eb95d4a0f
22684ee13f161d825f442dc6a20e1c0256e0fd83
F20101124_AABWNZ schmid_a_Page_013.tif
fef6b4553b7ecd1c44fc1dbbff6ab5e7
230376223d056f49056c7a07a621f7db03c8bcbb
F20101124_AABWPB schmid_a_Page_043.tif
cd30bdce938e39c330b889384a5dd370
ff58afa90fd8362717a8ff2448de52ec43fd4e9f
F20101124_AABWON schmid_a_Page_027.tif
3d29c772d4737b9d74b2737344e3c78a
499f234dc1c0b48fc47b2b52f701330f9f377ac2
F20101124_AABWPC schmid_a_Page_045.tif
0d93642307d5a37ab28b139ab0d976bb
7162c9bf3f772f99cc7475d95cf4b79b4dcd57c1
F20101124_AABWOO schmid_a_Page_028.tif
92c97296bd5adbaaa98a59c701a36e0d
5898ab29523ad221864a704e8942a30ac8fe7ce3
F20101124_AABWPD schmid_a_Page_046.tif
a36e6f6029ffd99380260b9f059ea11e
838251f0e3e719244db7f52e6ec4eece9c0ee32b
F20101124_AABWOP schmid_a_Page_029.tif
29963f1e61308ec1337392e09693e5cf
569ee01adfa1830c6be638ae95b8482966fc99d9
F20101124_AABWPE schmid_a_Page_047.tif
a658348be37eef4498c2cf80a74708be
4bd5c822a21ae1a46ac6f0fa9fafc1bbc50a948a
F20101124_AABWOQ schmid_a_Page_030.tif
33eed3f435b7436e3359cb023ed56bc3
52620a3545a44c9edb054b10c66fbdf3e122b07c
F20101124_AABWPF schmid_a_Page_048.tif
6bc22ed99353466ccabd5c94228189d3
40e1ecbbb846038fd31a49ebc7bb1e78538c7af3
F20101124_AABWOR schmid_a_Page_032.tif
a972a67233c8f6720557534f2fe2b47d
71142134dc59f277c85bf66930746ea27b5d4560
F20101124_AABWPG schmid_a_Page_050.tif
ae333ea10ad039f09898345bf114f660
6eb98c8b34e0d804ffa9f08d5567b55d5e0daef9
F20101124_AABWOS schmid_a_Page_033.tif
0ebc38715b8d4d7fe82e47c7791fa61a
88fc7b0b4a2cdf33428d17d84602e6c17d306b32
F20101124_AABWPH schmid_a_Page_051.tif
5ceabc66487d2473cdcd073d2b6777e6
aebfe302a75f56615373ffcbf250d4b8d433e68d
F20101124_AABWOT schmid_a_Page_034.tif
afc7cbc62bccb538e63c1620a9f08071
2d41374b79f75960c751203fec5617b299156b81
F20101124_AABWPI schmid_a_Page_052.tif
ab60a389950b9656c3df7adf94675a4a
51f132355d02665ceff1c498256a913218cedfed
F20101124_AABWOU schmid_a_Page_036.tif
a58607e5bf8264d51a62beb8dedab3da
c8d72c21fdb9955fbe3fccf72e60cac0cf383e7d
F20101124_AABWPJ schmid_a_Page_053.tif
d283216debdafda4a473c8561eaec41f
ea07ac7cef24f085ffcef22f39d495f0d88b5526
F20101124_AABWOV schmid_a_Page_037.tif
e7d87f8ddaf9766222afb8fe6f356171
a4399d821a16f6abd69f23f9f9a2f282d5922fda
F20101124_AABWPK schmid_a_Page_054.tif
1608b0a7169015e0d63c57beb384691e
9732a4de2a7dda2222b86e0c4d2db7e7178eb827
F20101124_AABWOW schmid_a_Page_038.tif
87d177180b67e42fdfc938074d14f932
8d2cbd0d5ce7fdde9a4fff61223f318c011a185f
F20101124_AABWQA schmid_a_Page_070.tif
0e51e0ad01c4ae4896e85bb38335089b
eb25cd8bd29845854634288fd83a1537de9b12e7
F20101124_AABWPL schmid_a_Page_055.tif
0289aa53899785ce73f628def7c72bd7
f46806bf4c76e20388786cdb19dbfea8085a515e
F20101124_AABWOX schmid_a_Page_039.tif
e643cdab70a093588db340ca9055c672
3c9038c8252ec43832a0713538f971e409ae137a
F20101124_AABWPM schmid_a_Page_056.tif
ab0847c3702084082a3fad978de82875
2df2d9c7486ac290dd4caa2c4f3027696eb57781
F20101124_AABWOY schmid_a_Page_040.tif
210b3e6184b48438f2defe3f5b82c77a
e144cc459ab52987cb1cb62113b29ef1f7c11116
F20101124_AABWQB schmid_a_Page_071.tif
7f970c9e20482cc66bbea3aae7da0bc8
83c5ede6377d86fc444bd425504eb19c6d038b93
F20101124_AABWPN schmid_a_Page_057.tif
ff3cde5f110efb26ee3660aacc14600d
fa4cf108d2d1806b1e2ba3fd99cc2e46f5256393
F20101124_AABWOZ schmid_a_Page_041.tif
69fcbc48b1870c701ef56ec4e66bfc30
baf3a2d5bc17a38312c382c45703b6500f3ee464
F20101124_AABWQC schmid_a_Page_072.tif
34660920a6e6f4cf8f540c8c0561a456
7ba27eb7ae02ef321f1e374c948e5d546fb9e469
F20101124_AABWPO schmid_a_Page_058.tif
22a01c4002339e5e5b54e4c05d551c66
cedeb22ac97a8e67f313264aa4036285859be6b8
F20101124_AABWQD schmid_a_Page_073.tif
258d6a049830d7231f4c181c5da4b03c
45c0dc8cef99273a991578913068c23df0255f5f
F20101124_AABWPP schmid_a_Page_059.tif
b9543b81917ac7ecd6e90a939da0260e
d1b58d63ad483de27e900fa9cb3bfa80b30c8aed
F20101124_AABWQE schmid_a_Page_074.tif
302c6b10264ad27687344464954cace7
b5b2307364a64755962d027ea073abc8367334c1
F20101124_AABWPQ schmid_a_Page_060.tif
28cfea95a0dc9148e858b6707912270c
38b9938480db5145cf042f3b962000ca23bf607c
F20101124_AABWQF schmid_a_Page_075.tif
e11bd671b1f929b0e62b890dcea7fcb8
22909ea6c94a650c63fbef4faf6f1a981546ede0
F20101124_AABWPR schmid_a_Page_061.tif
06c9031b7a818d22d3ebb9a72c86b521
ac430f6f5ea791ae5b106e5a7639d6efc24e1bc5
F20101124_AABWQG schmid_a_Page_076.tif
1fc3df8a56611d14dff061ecb48f93fc
d1ec95960e9d64a6bb778b5f56a4382100e1fb49
F20101124_AABWPS schmid_a_Page_062.tif
c17db26343363a4eca9ef59580289732
72ebbcda92bd89813d71c3a2ce31e1648c62999f
F20101124_AABWQH schmid_a_Page_077.tif
17012a3ff18778d0e8dac4dc06d480ff
0c851337267dce73f369a04203ee939b5d138a6b
F20101124_AABWPT schmid_a_Page_063.tif
6c764ba46932b08b962ed3fac0fccd47
f2781c242d079b8efa2cf135c056315cf928c8e1
F20101124_AABWQI schmid_a_Page_078.tif
64175ef1b87fbac8e564b47716a4cce3
152dd5b4d2c1f2b0a154b248ebf7d5e6d539c3ae
F20101124_AABWPU schmid_a_Page_064.tif
f2c67a130309ec861d274b921ee27f06
bf2bc32053658d15cf73973bccac45c3848b1b7d
F20101124_AABWQJ schmid_a_Page_079.tif
26eb65daff73416ffac293f8e7189cc1
066be91ca8f21f472d4d3d213f8bd49e029afb68
F20101124_AABWPV schmid_a_Page_065.tif
9b3b01d6d633fe059259270b3651129b
d81e92914dc4e9aaeaafce2bb291e24ce7fc071a
F20101124_AABWQK schmid_a_Page_080.tif
aa9ad4244c023e2f5aaf01440efcaf2a
f359e5f0ff3a0f47da04e550dbd40e5c6c2cd8ab
F20101124_AABWPW schmid_a_Page_066.tif
439bcc2797498a2d7852fb9845f69c56
832bf5d967c27a2e34cf38e6ed384df73feda664
F20101124_AABWQL schmid_a_Page_081.tif
bb7492381fa70269c058277536b68440
05a0418a931a7f973a16dce9a8208a2432d4919e
F20101124_AABWPX schmid_a_Page_067.tif
283ab5b1f30209c857c06f2c555f1530
2340a2fe3d2efb68fc718a6cb78cac64256cccdf
1054428 F20101124_AABWRA schmid_a_Page_096.tif
70495840d3b924b54adcc8ce1d278054
43156633b44f1a2673a7fed2f71267be46316ead
F20101124_AABWQM schmid_a_Page_082.tif
78206c978c6dd5aac8b342bae42f4755
172e07f17e46a4932748751bb2aa14b47be2fa97
F20101124_AABWPY schmid_a_Page_068.tif
edbd79f8cf8944ec676dce33299f9dbb
78c34df447fcb5cb67fd29ff831a0eb916ae7701
F20101124_AABWRB schmid_a_Page_097.tif
d51ffa672248e6c8f4cee2373953fd6d
70b19f6df9f698617e8e62a208b24436ef419e9a
F20101124_AABWQN schmid_a_Page_083.tif
66700021df29d81bfabf62917d7d34d0
fcc8c73d221032ee49997387fcdc54dcdfbbb9e9
F20101124_AABWPZ schmid_a_Page_069.tif
858ca8de21eda55c7d779e252bf26890
2a7478f7094b002fe68af0a736faaaf9caa55b64
F20101124_AABWQO schmid_a_Page_084.tif
4af97bdf808a6de635a6d659b1a6d578
2531cf99bb948c6a96b544c8064a75f50573c7a5
F20101124_AABWRC schmid_a_Page_098.tif
fb4b6c4565a0a1bec9ce81742bb865c6
bb7f3adc381ee96e6b0c335cc86768772f5fd1bf
F20101124_AABWQP schmid_a_Page_085.tif
534ad6ee0840416c67e5421ef2f2342d
6f7628571bfe040a79c8d8a2aa9cc45956e66904
F20101124_AABWRD schmid_a_Page_099.tif
df16b7df71b095b3895fbbda56e4f249
a1e1f2f80403ddb00060e731a972a82b177a1c9a
F20101124_AABWQQ schmid_a_Page_086.tif
3de96a41ae4849b74fd2a5f1dd1ba9b5
4bb51d365cbc7300f58310fc1607b215803194fb
F20101124_AABWRE schmid_a_Page_100.tif
31e3b0bceed682b23cf209f8611ec5c1
18b4a24e5bd9d87e404625dd42211ba67ac3158f
F20101124_AABWQR schmid_a_Page_087.tif
e99e02c1326a9f1105faef67bad412a2
259517cc0a379d96b7f206b123f91560af823bc9
F20101124_AABWRF schmid_a_Page_101.tif
c570d9e6fed9429a666b2a4d1f4291a6
1ce448014a5c7ed2d8f1d2dc870bc79cf14a4b4b
F20101124_AABWQS schmid_a_Page_088.tif
14ee408ba382d80d35cc9872b3f296df
ed7636f0e84fa1dc7bc65b34c72cf78d25ca68d3
F20101124_AABWRG schmid_a_Page_102.tif
31cd9ef04f40f717f54eb06b504df3b6
47d6004c3562057af33e35318e9e7f064b5dc1ac
F20101124_AABWQT schmid_a_Page_089.tif
3b5c6a3391f809574da0b73fd1446e61
4dfecf8d1d4e91202033e2246181714f2b52491b
F20101124_AABWRH schmid_a_Page_103.tif
caa226eb85911b9211fdc4d39e5972c5
e7ea05cad2af5a208ebdcfa380abb02a70d1f7f5
F20101124_AABWQU schmid_a_Page_090.tif
b4a63075979686735d445be80b6e4720
fb8ee3883942d46da1051d074dc36d15a31b11cb
F20101124_AABWRI schmid_a_Page_104.tif
c163213d2b199ac1d1213a74e0d4f6cb
a441370fc93f7f61e60fff9bf702e97e67574cb7
F20101124_AABWQV schmid_a_Page_091.tif
771ec98eb0efa0cb3138db5d91ef5a3c
f693bdd2af7f4a5f62330f413f88ab2a2d4e3a05
F20101124_AABWRJ schmid_a_Page_105.tif
b0dd85b696e7348b46a7fd1566e0197c
bb34d52d6267e0f18651b17e770584ce43f2deb9
F20101124_AABWQW schmid_a_Page_092.tif
b946f9bbfd8519265355ccdab86b6ca7
71438558d4a91e56490808dd38b0c908ae2cea5a
F20101124_AABWRK schmid_a_Page_106.tif
5dd2d80703a3d81a32f91aab6fff080f
173b2ffa20c191ea18fd873a7e402cd8d6cdc2a4
F20101124_AABWQX schmid_a_Page_093.tif
acd6a5df0915870682357266f9f9c85b
50139861829eeab3a38282c0f468f2b69566d5fd
41519 F20101124_AABWSA schmid_a_Page_004.pro
b723a276645aacc16fb274d403554fca
c45a4a758d7902490334cab5a9dde147a2c82615
F20101124_AABWRL schmid_a_Page_107.tif
c54bac6145b91db2176f8ffea20f5e7e
883e00005f37d6db5843ba7feda0890d0e8364c8
F20101124_AABWQY schmid_a_Page_094.tif
05fab6b5ccc1807a0806746eadb62824
c0a8d2f29e109ee1189a73d083894688ebb5ce8e
28900 F20101124_AABWSB schmid_a_Page_005.pro
dde36a82c99e7424451267fd648819d4
13c4b436b8738b83ed27fffd24460c2ac51b44aa
F20101124_AABWRM schmid_a_Page_108.tif
cbc71487c9243e5ef78497fa7277f0e4
c074466d57194f590347de5664536a652898d186
78659 F20101124_AABWSC schmid_a_Page_006.pro
976878cf7989a847529736f435a8078a
172f01889f1548384d6a544665a899f49757a62c
F20101124_AABWRN schmid_a_Page_109.tif
940f03ca8e768a49bf8f2fe71beb40e6
19b8695b36ba3877d59525976150943b1aea64bc
F20101124_AABWQZ schmid_a_Page_095.tif
d2e89cba932e28f55c6568fda16c3cec
46ffc0b1a24a627459cfce897af6f1d857126689
F20101124_AABWRO schmid_a_Page_110.tif
6532f74cbe093c5a3557fe70c402fdbe
90b02e990473552f2428c8c5e125549575f5c158
113125 F20101124_AABWSD schmid_a_Page_007.pro
1a97cc735254735e200a5a729a9ca395
a9ed88bd2749f8dc05f4aa31faf2c0839aaa17d4
F20101124_AABWRP schmid_a_Page_111.tif
50986f00fc095a268775b16e29ffc768
6f1f3d49aab0da252c936108d44926ee3ad68987
43341 F20101124_AABWSE schmid_a_Page_008.pro
7f6a6c448513b375748be85d2de9c108
80d2f335edae90c54fc262c880d2647824be5da1
F20101124_AABWRQ schmid_a_Page_112.tif
95b09823bbc88267109c3fe5b7577795
6fa61413863418d120f83ff5c0c05c04e8e9f115
55193 F20101124_AABWSF schmid_a_Page_009.pro
6115e19eedf5994d74386e1094486b12
d667cc3b52b07d70a13d689296b2a2511915e00e
F20101124_AABWRR schmid_a_Page_113.tif
214ac8a74d09d24a291e1978d50ee4af
0f36e937b13a855879f2be9015956d539dde90aa
5727 F20101124_AABWSG schmid_a_Page_010.pro
ede9b751dbc7f8eeee8e3451ab33122f
a76b55c82e30a937d82313c49806e12723c10a3f
F20101124_AABWRS schmid_a_Page_114.tif
685ca2e7d32be616d4363250ad5e202a
01facde8f021694b75f51003c229ac70b4168c97
6393 F20101124_AABWSH schmid_a_Page_011.pro
755aac7f45e90c3bafe275afba8eb05f
b2592c98b1db477d41737fdb7e665ee579fd84e2
F20101124_AABWRT schmid_a_Page_115.tif
5b6996ede1b22b49c91e228aae2d8d37
7936fa3c4aa69e1793c880cb34d4a9ea1ce98c4f
38841 F20101124_AABWSI schmid_a_Page_012.pro
dd8fe4f2c1089a8056f3497a8e74c9c6
44c398e848cbd4c0a77ef91ff0e0777429144d63
F20101124_AABWRU schmid_a_Page_116.tif
94ba40a507bac2b0ca835be553bd81ac
f5a42eb9ae15b15e7fb5c90237e12dc705ca59f6
37436 F20101124_AABWSJ schmid_a_Page_013.pro
e6be08c6d6ab4994415d0849eaeed017
dfb32b03a40d03421b7a989f1b6e6fe69373d079
F20101124_AABWRV schmid_a_Page_117.tif
8239176926449deccd58c63c66229d39
a81b53ad375b76b7fca93bb7a4de4292196e8894
46379 F20101124_AABWSK schmid_a_Page_014.pro
48012fe8ad372024b42c73de6426fa2b
8a80b193e1fc1252c01cc6bede24a3508dbe32d4
F20101124_AABWRW schmid_a_Page_118.tif
70a1c8dd3bb2db6a3d0b8f439d93483b
48ea7caf7df4923dc1448b6035afb348751be485
51958 F20101124_AABWSL schmid_a_Page_015.pro
923622a19670496ec73cdc0cde2d22af
aa90cd2d21e9778715e33a76054257e5a92a77af
7792 F20101124_AABWRX schmid_a_Page_001.pro
8cf5138a137865b40997dff6640f026f
3adff62806fb013f86810c185b2e1672081db87a
48203 F20101124_AABWTA schmid_a_Page_032.pro
7d21d83570ae0aeb139d9d2153f7a4b4
0068d0ee03b5a4f091c283cf8fc7dc05e4867a33
50552 F20101124_AABWSM schmid_a_Page_016.pro
7274a8024fdef9a3a691cb8c2fff5b59
d687464580a8bd4006beb3a87d0c1d5759407c76
1226 F20101124_AABWRY schmid_a_Page_002.pro
23bb23b038f2b16423f443ab75ebdc55
87fb8242eed0e1536f3aabe1f943c3b7109e8cb0
53359 F20101124_AABWTB schmid_a_Page_033.pro
904d4fb99cdadf8d4b02ee52a05c150b
788c4500cba0ac588ed864d5bd5acfc9855a3ccf
38551 F20101124_AABWSN schmid_a_Page_017.pro
9cfb782d31cda8d628008341c2f5f15c
26f5bea699a0971648afb39bde4d3f573d78c8b9
2262 F20101124_AABWRZ schmid_a_Page_003.pro
7717918312be605becf2edbfe219445c
608f2cdcf44ed030223950ca2f4fb7a754a12fdd
48675 F20101124_AABWTC schmid_a_Page_034.pro
3a06a6c56a4c526a4e8c0ac50095e43b
b6b590e9508d334425fc411fb0c175b6e425812c
49738 F20101124_AABWSO schmid_a_Page_018.pro
7d2d4a1bd70f753cc79bd8c1fe608d21
9212f25877f748e2edaec0f373d1064bce390e59
46867 F20101124_AABWTD schmid_a_Page_035.pro
508a11fa41ed0a883a4e0943ae9eba6a
5e87af56bada680e9ab801051cb31200a79b3252
49520 F20101124_AABWSP schmid_a_Page_019.pro
dae1cd55e496013c41530285143d58ab
ffe83ceb5506ad793cc9d9d3abdf11812759a518
37001 F20101124_AABWSQ schmid_a_Page_020.pro
259bff6908294e5da8ac107c6c70b44e
c7b8c487937d7a9910ebc4d0768a12ce38105997
52196 F20101124_AABWTE schmid_a_Page_036.pro
acc6311bfae5e92709a6237b2e431fab
727803cc9fb7490dac7277709b4df9bdcbf5e3c5
11052 F20101124_AABWSR schmid_a_Page_021.pro
f876ee9b2e9f030f0f988cf64740e439
99a9bf10e2729b019fb862d04a2dfa7e44b9e936
48252 F20101124_AABWTF schmid_a_Page_037.pro
03612c535173ad16c5421ae58f6690c1
26ccca6a91c1977f6def5e9fae5793d0e65505a4
44969 F20101124_AABWSS schmid_a_Page_022.pro
cf90381d88776fa7f09eb93737e30a68
f26c1ffcf338f8edb6db19bd6a03033ff1364ca4
52839 F20101124_AABWTG schmid_a_Page_038.pro
e158d06c30b4d03ba9a422dea263934f
927badc4803e802fe2f0c09e6175c608366cdfa6
50005 F20101124_AABWST schmid_a_Page_023.pro
c7ebc1a974e4368cdc7d9fc15df50cd1
7617c1539037e09c8ec64e1a8b00da3a3c8be461
50063 F20101124_AABWTH schmid_a_Page_040.pro
2597997f37405b261401759f8965e31e
d58378b49c073cc620171dbc4d77a61f8bef0e86
46633 F20101124_AABWSU schmid_a_Page_024.pro
111a70a04685d4b47fdde803c9315948
b2bb28a45eeb975a064b126535c1880ee7270e31
48486 F20101124_AABWTI schmid_a_Page_041.pro
1428d2e55a112795ed01de93349b500f
5ef4dec8af2d9f69ebbdf91526d95733623374a8
49454 F20101124_AABWSV schmid_a_Page_025.pro
211a00c3961a6683b69d72faf59387e9
be710aa73f199804d89312044d3e29ade4f6a5eb
53943 F20101124_AABWTJ schmid_a_Page_042.pro
aefcd4aa934174d887948d06d4b8cdeb
d681c0401d2ce5175cbd05f999c974ff4e5c88b0
45272 F20101124_AABWSW schmid_a_Page_027.pro
03c7f7812ba87e6d014cee40b66ce320
e6ff875d46f52f43a81b2f9bb686c2e53f7d48fa
53084 F20101124_AABWTK schmid_a_Page_043.pro
8bb3950201baa623ca03576bf224d2e2
88f8d9ea2d10a67f3c1f5a4a5698ed4b5c3913d8
51010 F20101124_AABWSX schmid_a_Page_028.pro
820ec3a24545a443cf9029867da62384
3690cd20840488382a04dd89fc6d6e250984cc6b
50895 F20101124_AABWUA schmid_a_Page_059.pro
5548f1364d30537b0ae46d4759e64cf7
42d40978ee02e4f878a0e0ec1d6880313cea4754
49011 F20101124_AABWTL schmid_a_Page_044.pro
44848f4dfc4254035cfed27fca8a12ce
cc491c4b417d8d65f3eb4562a6aca79f53948e0d
51265 F20101124_AABWSY schmid_a_Page_029.pro
5485a9c071131faed6bb48e117fefde1
911b1e954f943a5f013df89a0481acda6ff1a892
28521 F20101124_AABWUB schmid_a_Page_060.pro
80663bc16a6d4399a1dd1bbe3528c7e8
aaf28d73706f5087502c5c08a7f11a562ae6546c
48089 F20101124_AABWTM schmid_a_Page_045.pro
e876275e3933238c42f62bb3eecfe922
4aa57ca7b924b0c96803112da39e18f55b116ae4
53322 F20101124_AABWSZ schmid_a_Page_030.pro
9d8b25a751b462b62fc10377f13223a3
bc70cff7e0b6a1c35d73acab68c1c96abbe07f86
44683 F20101124_AABWUC schmid_a_Page_061.pro
8aed038d5eab36f3783e14c93cd44583
f13a471a375074206c29f8c961df0bec08de9b55
46246 F20101124_AABWTN schmid_a_Page_046.pro
95e5113eaf163dc7ef846c901003a406
3698e34667ad12b23c82ddc5403c5595fae43d2b
53464 F20101124_AABWUD schmid_a_Page_062.pro
f85d5f86f35d1acbd3491e6ea235856a
0dd2640be79ecb83134b2ce28e3b160665139b3a
28967 F20101124_AABWTO schmid_a_Page_047.pro
fd7e56a629399015fb0eb381c76dce60
701908a1ed2da88180b1e207fe6dc9226db6a038
48027 F20101124_AABWUE schmid_a_Page_063.pro
3484ee2b274893674b3b056608de4a12
9b2cc57daaff5ab4b7f4027d6307b0d63f60ecac
39862 F20101124_AABWTP schmid_a_Page_048.pro
f0353db09c4a1851a14f35dce7014f94
1013506bc5567b66247d996c6c66febb707f08ef
52073 F20101124_AABWTQ schmid_a_Page_049.pro
6b8faf99a9c8ffd97036179a5f31624f
cd92b16c391027bc72020938fb64a1ced3da1a00
48688 F20101124_AABWUF schmid_a_Page_064.pro
5f209149d467d602ed1f5a38fdc661cd
4d0c866a49fc65de219178bd75b268aa7023f921
50266 F20101124_AABWTR schmid_a_Page_050.pro
c839a03f6c74caafb43dbfcb4a6a3158
e563dca5dea4a9876ab4ebd1764bc631f1e13f3e
2268 F20101124_AABXAA schmid_a_Page_111.txt
07f52291904772f77386e8e1d10a5145
1c66bc79bb53d1605e216808b36f9dc4d0766d86
50409 F20101124_AABWUG schmid_a_Page_065.pro
f1a75cd5f869a89616beaa22494bcf76
d220514a84be5196e4a3d338900ddc44faa92a14
52050 F20101124_AABWTS schmid_a_Page_051.pro
a3468eca3a66f4caca2e33f780a65fbc
0c0218a3cc4dc688db010b09f4988a3a1249148e
2363 F20101124_AABXAB schmid_a_Page_112.txt
8a70606e6492955501f6f5badba675a1
7a9f2ab909d00dffd5547488c5c8b345472a2236
44309 F20101124_AABWUH schmid_a_Page_066.pro
71ec5e49cc64fc5d495be581229ba094
c1da0dd400aed6246991e62a899ff1af1bb95e55
51002 F20101124_AABWTT schmid_a_Page_052.pro
26038a2373398d7da4a7e67b902be9e3
10e88cd1a71ed9fb01f7a7a7b6271e4d57ebe3d7
2316 F20101124_AABXAC schmid_a_Page_113.txt
dcf91fbbb0c79a12ae0251ba1ac6c8ab
1ff2473a774d2d987f2e336e5dded546b678ed3f
44381 F20101124_AABWUI schmid_a_Page_067.pro
49fa169ec10bcd43515c214e59fbaf1a
6b67e00b3bf6b83dbed092d05893a9e4669db18b
48288 F20101124_AABWTU schmid_a_Page_053.pro
d957d43a9026b099ac0a65e3ec787fc1
94049b25b553adf7874787ca6e3733e9880d113d
2329 F20101124_AABXAD schmid_a_Page_114.txt
d98c759fa74e1b900a0ff0b6d5e47067
6620e31d1930d4d319f25aa2c437ef81c71377bb
51212 F20101124_AABWUJ schmid_a_Page_068.pro
983dcd6a9bc4f50830dc312c4ddb61a3
960b57407dcdc52f9d2b3b1e367490172f84d598
49007 F20101124_AABWTV schmid_a_Page_054.pro
1ede5dd1e5a4363894a2c8ceaa8ec5bc
a2b2631dc1b899c760f0939127476cd907fab170
2345 F20101124_AABXAE schmid_a_Page_116.txt
50c438504180a9abe056932dcdbf9c7f
35fcfcde433b7ed215cc668a11c708f52f6e5615
47278 F20101124_AABWUK schmid_a_Page_069.pro
6daf9a13b4929edaef29f7543153047e
629552415b48a3c020fe2f15d2276ad75160ad86
55041 F20101124_AABWTW schmid_a_Page_055.pro
012f7627da8c5607062ebe4aba4251bb
225ed8f29d262f8db9b0695684ef589f7da3bcff
638 F20101124_AABXAF schmid_a_Page_117.txt
74d833fce137a3f578b142d37bee583b
2f2023b08cf51ad618d3c421de97d8a28abccfe7
52866 F20101124_AABWVA schmid_a_Page_085.pro
6ba4abe40a0f638fb9c8661832dfbb66
8bed5317be6f92664b3004955be3dc04a07238f8
56849 F20101124_AABWUL schmid_a_Page_070.pro
bfe40633e61cd71318bdd88965b80154
955d8744eb4d28cc1d0f48b8d48f8315932e4a42
50215 F20101124_AABWTX schmid_a_Page_056.pro
5a50cb3506879751541bd04719e18ffc
29d75eb3f571d9e930d004724bfcf3a080e6d353
1096 F20101124_AABXAG schmid_a_Page_118.txt
19b88facafed5c033fcb2c67014391e6
de69581a1fd6f49f9cbcc9e7e26544da2eacc4b1
48735 F20101124_AABWVB schmid_a_Page_086.pro
2f9c6caf3aa5f24322716d9f1df45b64
59cf2f5147b9356bae2574940e970a9c4bdf7e19
50509 F20101124_AABWUM schmid_a_Page_071.pro
867eed6f8199ebeff833ce368b2a2c2b
a945e45b372e57de72908ad0117180171972d69c
50867 F20101124_AABWTY schmid_a_Page_057.pro
d070a2c8509345f972eb093326f302c1
bbcd63889dd56be080c6a38011f87ff1113874f4
2325 F20101124_AABXAH schmid_a_Page_001thm.jpg
0610cfeaeb3645f4d34da07cb7475ca6
267781f86f1a90f3cd4604e4f0edd83e095e8772
49197 F20101124_AABWVC schmid_a_Page_088.pro
f75cc50aa0847bedf5b35902f96a925f
8137f88a82df732a7d1885dc61232b2331db2c7c
50069 F20101124_AABWUN schmid_a_Page_072.pro
7d32842c393370e7aed52f528efa6c79
c869b04d2cf5fa4158b5b79ee3d944e37bfc611e
48390 F20101124_AABWTZ schmid_a_Page_058.pro
4102e3c13454af3810df8f9821ceb2ab
edc252bbb842dddf18fb6b3eadd1daea8ce5173f
314627 F20101124_AABXAI schmid_a.pdf
087eb061488de2dc22a2242bf0599ee7
f999cb91f7fb03ef369485b162d0cc9bb61f3504
3611 F20101124_AABWVD schmid_a_Page_089.pro
530200fbfd8686cc1b052a97bac8ec39
6284e99fdf2de0bfd6b4a9c7590df36724ceba71
52328 F20101124_AABWUO schmid_a_Page_073.pro
2520a27074fd0ecca69c9c75a94b626c
07769cbc61ba7f8417ef8e3f16fea84a1f2fabd2
23849 F20101124_AABXAJ schmid_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
63e2280bc505db7d6d4cdc23e96545e9
42a8c455d9a4b3e1d9494c7c7e342c6ce5b87a1c
47616 F20101124_AABWVE schmid_a_Page_091.pro
8016eb2f2278ffdda7ec9075fb6a6a8c
3e2886a7bee2592e7a83e9a558e5e2b160413227
53992 F20101124_AABWUP schmid_a_Page_074.pro
e6990d0d252dcd368815688c319af0f7
529e2b693b584458092c22208c51092156e14912
6245 F20101124_AABXAK schmid_a_Page_044thm.jpg
0db166e82e5461fd3d119f0a5dca381f
086c5f122f38520690e1d2785d16a86593b8a7ad
50848 F20101124_AABWVF schmid_a_Page_092.pro
5673228d587a691b1ee6e322d8a3bfe0
d192ac645114b118acf364acb63d045e8c1c07fa
53530 F20101124_AABWUQ schmid_a_Page_075.pro
db8a687797a787addd87c23bd735b383
b93ca19d0dc2055578aff0c2a6f1f93951bcc013
7163 F20101124_AABXAL schmid_a_Page_099thm.jpg
acaa92b353fa15217f1073dd8fddf62d
a9659135075cbdb14f008e6815df874823e64f0e
50429 F20101124_AABWUR schmid_a_Page_076.pro
c55e152f38f1bba83b231685efdb2655
7344f2a101b203e456bea9d8330e23bb8c03ceca
1468 F20101124_AABXBA schmid_a_Page_003thm.jpg
53934e3b9c5758ef61be47e04adb03aa
102596579b2e722cc987176796d9fb598beb4ed0
25997 F20101124_AABXAM schmid_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
07a7d1db6f7929a8782ae3eed319b4d3
3dbcff0edf4fa7ec31fc122e63cff70f32c5809d
43926 F20101124_AABWVG schmid_a_Page_093.pro
1177b5b9c208820705d26c8f0e69f97d
4439e500f5c9eea2a4164d105e65043a4875488f
50541 F20101124_AABWUS schmid_a_Page_077.pro
963ab8f0f45c868924ff53e1bfad135c
9deb2d82e9f78d4c0e72d97e1d258aae0a368bb3
5620 F20101124_AABXBB schmid_a_Page_048thm.jpg
b81b6705dc3455968614c87cb9929111
13484b2eb5d6165ede22294153512e1aec3e3866
4568 F20101124_AABXAN schmid_a_Page_005thm.jpg
bf4a6a4b9cbc6c44961757a29eefb9e5
7bc24e038f843fbe0b72b93196fdedd2c06c30a1
2240 F20101124_AABWVH schmid_a_Page_094.pro
d2a3378b23fc489c60cca8d4e8be00a2
326ce2287ffc22d166b7b6be27e9b96b82dbfa1f
51521 F20101124_AABWUT schmid_a_Page_078.pro
d4010c7a31dd38d67bce8f0ebaeeca5d
24c2efbe27ce6ac44b4c954e0cca269f9780de5f
23173 F20101124_AABXBC schmid_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
58875cc11daa49029a013b72dc33eddf
f7d235eec2f69851687d8cd857694dde3e5ec83a
22631 F20101124_AABXAO schmid_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
470e1ad16b45ef4df79dbf95fb344b6a
9fd8dc80596becf240a30550f9e7a4987357a570
90688 F20101124_AABWVI schmid_a_Page_095.pro
da6a0b4f88f553d523a12806d5f2f712
87f3d538fe1ff9abc4f69d298804b7d94a24321d
50906 F20101124_AABWUU schmid_a_Page_079.pro
85717b5a3bb4de4e1aa697610b25d74b
e8510c015d46eb154fda1fb61079d229ecde5b58
23799 F20101124_AABXBD schmid_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
c80c5b762cbfcaba5acc6c0accbed176
a01057548beb55d0fc611bd05c989bdf0ab5237a
23225 F20101124_AABXAP schmid_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
11549850d4f62cc32cdedff129a359eb
3e8d38c6ecd22036d447db4ee63766848461eba3
88862 F20101124_AABWVJ schmid_a_Page_097.pro
96cc99560f748bdc1d6e6855064ebfe4
a659ad10396e81b63b3578e9b993089c017db607
54202 F20101124_AABWUV schmid_a_Page_080.pro
fff34f9a5f0e4c4bd98f50a4889e35d9
a7d5fd332b4e7276691c53222f1396d0cbe59a5f
14132 F20101124_AABXBE schmid_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
f45eb87bd8e59d4f01a8cf0b5d5430db
cac52a8ef7ac9e2e7da303315c855ecac6ff09f1
43901 F20101124_AABWVK schmid_a_Page_098.pro
be6595e75a0563e824d006ce02199e43
7200d857a9eec16a6586bd13940e077693adcc8b
50555 F20101124_AABWUW schmid_a_Page_081.pro
862a8e75c4489fd1316e51f35649c010
6ad66d1b0e538717b26e988a059a2081adfbf652
7229 F20101124_AABXBF schmid_a_Page_030thm.jpg
38ad534e3d12dd11b10978daa95d3e9a
18faaf7c6b77016685bb5fd7eb210bb276619563
6122 F20101124_AABXAQ schmid_a_Page_053thm.jpg
a9a35174ed2361f1cafd25895f483685
5e34af6c24e1f1c220b7779e456cb53ae14813c3
57699 F20101124_AABWVL schmid_a_Page_099.pro
1ce77aff62baaf59a3fd380d82ec8482
abc45f6eed97055be5c5c6ac906e5da48556422e
53069 F20101124_AABWUX schmid_a_Page_082.pro
a1867f5e3e0f4bb8f1d2d174762cdcbb
15c2e11179dee1f7aeaabccc504f502eb606a211
20930 F20101124_AABXBG schmid_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
05be67f475813ae48493e3a868eb1f42
30092ac41752f959b3838851ac2a52b0f18433fb
58232 F20101124_AABWWA schmid_a_Page_115.pro
45e0ce06cd7768c7ef20153467cb5f2d
07d32baae3bec80c6cb33267e97515563462dce2
19411 F20101124_AABXAR schmid_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
383ce5ea16957b17824c433ad9c29e4a
cf9a9a62202689a91081c1e5bf71735e8d1ecff9
62478 F20101124_AABWVM schmid_a_Page_100.pro
d461bb273407a1095992b41627b55d38
737b9e729b51a451354294c61d1ea23df1b56479
51854 F20101124_AABWUY schmid_a_Page_083.pro
c62e185927a3fe1f626800aa9bfe1dde
74b0c5ad245f9853c0b4ef10e688068109a0cfc5
24701 F20101124_AABXBH schmid_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
445f34d0047b37d79b3158f8d3817bee
60fedc5a72998ff41b541c8410d28b8d28989266
14209 F20101124_AABWWB schmid_a_Page_117.pro
607dab86d46483acf1a44efecc79cb11
c89f6555b14f025d21da56c2675eee24350a3fff
22820 F20101124_AABXAS schmid_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
46afaa344c8d2686a1f5a0098c1a5c9b
0850c1581639cc1ebd4e5a1a819abe90082a3cc1
54209 F20101124_AABWVN schmid_a_Page_101.pro
8b01a44008fcc13b502018eb4500f935
e4d4a06a255d3e205a8ff1d0361917dfd79a1155
52768 F20101124_AABWUZ schmid_a_Page_084.pro
cba6488a5ae71376eaae674e434f0caa
c18ae4d5a3aae606ebf5a0a23fb02f9536cab499
4155 F20101124_AABXBI schmid_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
f1796888190071aea6a10a68428b9b57
172d2bf55f605f9e13f5569821673aa83df91c57
26389 F20101124_AABWWC schmid_a_Page_118.pro
26a145c343007e85c5d2b561e9bd4016
8fdc371288d13321aca1c380b99ac864b0ccd34f
24134 F20101124_AABXAT schmid_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
10a7a44ddac45bb8358c16c909c29351
02218ec56c04ca3e949e67c9be590c70b61ca539
53387 F20101124_AABWVO schmid_a_Page_102.pro
2c9d8baccf312945b630acf8bbec1f52
86eae34cbb4d4f41e3f55e0e49eb9031e9b73918
6512 F20101124_AABXBJ schmid_a_Page_036thm.jpg
36900daa49e510209d49c858444b611f
cdba6f861504176f1ba39d5edf02b44a293ad491
441 F20101124_AABWWD schmid_a_Page_001.txt
97cd9b17e532ba33d70fffddb30e53d5
faad146760099142ee7805078b06396b7fe7e7a9
22391 F20101124_AABXAU schmid_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
3f5bf48cab37f8d85876ba2fb9f46a0c
3ad828960940eb1242a455127ad988d55654b04a
59386 F20101124_AABWVP schmid_a_Page_103.pro
f57c51f3a59c83ba55089a8b28225a69
fd88c446575dbf603248ffb116bfe24048a216d0
5001 F20101124_AABXBK schmid_a_Page_013thm.jpg
945a701289abf48707d7c1b5c4456dba
ed03bc1e5dea59601da925f2bcc0e68ca13b9162
115 F20101124_AABWWE schmid_a_Page_002.txt
54d5c87940580ceb2a34c7802890090f
7605a79683da0169ab0dfe28e24c4efce058bdf2
6454 F20101124_AABXAV schmid_a_Page_064thm.jpg
c62babb5ed9dd66119bacd85400a8ce2
4b3ce9be36e531c4fb516e392ff943b777e93b5a
56453 F20101124_AABWVQ schmid_a_Page_104.pro
c814090709a460cf8b6ced52c4d6568b
2329f2e191c027ea95fee96060c50c099e9eb296
177081 F20101124_AABXBL UFE0011389_00001.xml
36784e835413a037755df413762ddcc2
4190eda62d59a141a915fda3ac93a4cc093508e2
141 F20101124_AABWWF schmid_a_Page_003.txt
8d52fb7fad9809474472c98c8647347d
b0fb79dba16c236c753dd8f8c4f750ba2e67823d
23174 F20101124_AABXAW schmid_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
9299965c1b536da2dd419246fdf54b14
62da017774895a1b285343e9ecaf76bf61dff0be
56023 F20101124_AABWVR schmid_a_Page_105.pro
4d56f9018555f931f67b4f2e593d1d9c
2f18af6d404036f1ca77ae05214fa94ef2fa60ce
4744 F20101124_AABXCA schmid_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
93712a65418cae444fc31c60369f45b2
0223007adb4992c75dfa8088df8fe8f5b6267d61
6914 F20101124_AABXBM schmid_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
4508b96a626f55096af9040ec77b8161
cae3a04986f5f84b10b71b857883a3ab59575966
1681 F20101124_AABWWG schmid_a_Page_004.txt
195ea4056e67e4286127837341d852ec
8083c052d61d7d0e2dd950b454a04189a5458d43
18081 F20101124_AABXAX schmid_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
ac0a0d59a3de39fca9c840d1e617d0ec
f8a84161033bc3d5e6443c6e862cc66f80ac198b
58639 F20101124_AABWVS schmid_a_Page_106.pro
2290ea192c18db7568210068b6f01a8c
5322a7501ec61daf0098f631b3e8c155653cec52
1844 F20101124_AABXCB schmid_a_Page_011thm.jpg
a5b7cff440decb20643cb908258b1dd7
1ddc6b04aa62e6c8afe13e09e7186452ebdf0cfb
3333 F20101124_AABXBN schmid_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
f79db8cfcd718cc9e84437dd56bcc587
7c757062fa9d90467ffd04276941150d221da314
6334 F20101124_AABXAY schmid_a_Page_058thm.jpg
74306464fd9c394693cfb636ac3f96fe
64e13b034e85fa4743b111982c073d57e09c5f74
54647 F20101124_AABWVT schmid_a_Page_107.pro
ce2a9e04b5c63a4fc06e321b79a74dc8
87bc8ee44261e38fb513df82e5b28d1359a264e9
18255 F20101124_AABXCC schmid_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
94082ccc7d0d47c726d8a1f003cd96f3
16f7b177d710df15d08707a0f69857cc8b3f704e
1397 F20101124_AABXBO schmid_a_Page_002thm.jpg
f513fdc9e8b44ef240aa6ce5234e76d4
ce2f08c2bdd33384f33656259958578d09d5fd18
1159 F20101124_AABWWH schmid_a_Page_005.txt
b1e5a4740dadd2d23ba40eb007bfcd9d
eee1f1471b5a4dbbadf29f151ed39ea605c9eaae
6283 F20101124_AABXAZ schmid_a_Page_032thm.jpg
3a0f17d87736f7eb4646631b84bfdc89
2cfac6fecfe8217fba4530f4a144e1fa46baae3c
56343 F20101124_AABWVU schmid_a_Page_109.pro
12d824f7ef6dd1c3088862a3392868c7
91dd2e02feafccae3b160eab656d8b333771a428
5215 F20101124_AABXCD schmid_a_Page_012thm.jpg
88f1a3c3da5ac6295d41ef22ce20d559
4b2850fe31dae4a58834aaab0bd1e37545e6dc54
3487 F20101124_AABXBP schmid_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
10ca95138620e457996d5cf6ff946e68
6dd0d07e9ccf236d8e4d12b1d6aeb790150bf802
3323 F20101124_AABWWI schmid_a_Page_006.txt
63ce01daaef0a76c215c9ac885b7f077
eb0b5f78448dda6a69bb53391883d83a54673aa1
56070 F20101124_AABWVV schmid_a_Page_110.pro
f700b079944892e36f82cd55813d1fc5
99f6f00bbae04013f3baab649359981a5c074d49
21337 F20101124_AABXCE schmid_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
f31e6b11fc8bc2daf2d7c29fb1e6cdc3
c878eafa7d06491118e975c870000116ef538e74
20680 F20101124_AABXBQ schmid_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
963c54181823a5cd3af22ca00a9d6e0b
cd59171abe83eab9169408f5165e9ba154c8a2be
4673 F20101124_AABWWJ schmid_a_Page_007.txt
588fa56ac5b289ae0917448e9e370c1b
618e8a00bbfa5076318c96848ac2787dd1989949
5995 F20101124_AABXCF schmid_a_Page_014thm.jpg
6cd3580c2b91f7a5b050aef2aaed9538
6b6bfa619960ca7dbe23ccdf69f6b30763d40ce5
1803 F20101124_AABWWK schmid_a_Page_008.txt
56c0609c704a12429582d9140ee7ff97
327b4f886ee73cbd46a0c7be15693c846faf88c7
54880 F20101124_AABWVW schmid_a_Page_111.pro
ce9130621bf1f88c15a9013ccfb3a1f7
8fbcdeea750004a81f2a9e6170a06e53baf125bb
24054 F20101124_AABXCG schmid_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
379ad22c63405ab7c293ae26f82a221a
74f5641de77fd8bd17da95b96c7461317264eff2
1942 F20101124_AABWXA schmid_a_Page_026.txt
fe165658a56cf6c5468a8003816e5de3
a57bee1f2ce03d81774fe6f7cec8f5a04d11af5e
5801 F20101124_AABXBR schmid_a_Page_004thm.jpg
259535f56100f4e23998f06338937f2f
8ca5be8bf53ab2954da4df2dc2473b9e566717a2
2212 F20101124_AABWWL schmid_a_Page_009.txt
10272b1eae17981b0b2a83855e017fca
cfc97230f46aa5eb6eb2f8554270d25245a44737
56451 F20101124_AABWVX schmid_a_Page_112.pro
abdca070f08f93e20ef5d71c03fe533f
33713a3aff42c4419dfd996a20b91802cc73e0f1
6566 F20101124_AABXCH schmid_a_Page_015thm.jpg
8458bb38bdc5677ca78520031b27796e
c0956c06474a836a70f8174ff0e8b525046db665
1815 F20101124_AABWXB schmid_a_Page_027.txt
b97c4f45607f5c95a1d284ac47b568b1
3609787217878637d18a2ce22352282be9ee141e
18108 F20101124_AABXBS schmid_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
b7d737cc9c2e09189815f9088a7631ba
a9d774c3e855f8bf06889fdc4e8f3fc00df08ec3
229 F20101124_AABWWM schmid_a_Page_010.txt
0bc84bc3b9c96c6ad585eb8a5e3070be
e9f177b088fbc6d355823dbd0a4462302985bdfa
55640 F20101124_AABWVY schmid_a_Page_113.pro
c9e6bcc20ff99c000727eda854d0ab0e
c348b30a10083a73b067b03082c5ea5f17f52c91
23468 F20101124_AABXCI schmid_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
206f23e3872f1d94b37d40ffb17e9989
ecf79ef2a6de5d5eb31a0e7aa93d044ec4a9a2a7
2010 F20101124_AABWXC schmid_a_Page_028.txt
fbd83cc9f303beeef71a0f45a019fdd2
2a2e14b1decc3fad8bd9e00016d2cf6b274babbf
4943 F20101124_AABXBT schmid_a_Page_006thm.jpg
4a6684185ebe36f26e2132aeae416559
995ed00dc51e944a1667285394e853adc80179af
287 F20101124_AABWWN schmid_a_Page_011.txt
38df38a8598d5f819dae0f7bb6e330a9
8a1c23739cd00d0baf48f293cc280094b9bb55e3
55941 F20101124_AABWVZ schmid_a_Page_114.pro
36a0b73f4534f0492215fd9c7eb91c85
3d3b285f4fe727250ea67ac02c878fa0f174dca2
6484 F20101124_AABXCJ schmid_a_Page_016thm.jpg
7a5cb21207f4192017b5bd9d21e9609a
2528af032943cd01201d62f049c0cdec3ca6dbdb
2026 F20101124_AABWXD schmid_a_Page_029.txt
9496b9a2dc201decf611481e25e6fdee
35ea64d4014ccaa48f9a4d3799ac0a6c00508cbe
5600 F20101124_AABXBU schmid_a_Page_007thm.jpg
3f2a23384437b1bf079c2c470c668379
09b68557134e17b67d0d7cb100315886a32df095
1499 F20101124_AABWWO schmid_a_Page_013.txt
56e9fb1691cf64c3d2b7e3bb0cf07751
66f71af7006c0b3a4eb31598c22a7bc6f1b1dc65
18798 F20101124_AABXCK schmid_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
8f6d00d022fc2834f6adbdd653d1c635
d8c674a7a7dfeca8083c3554d86e256cf3cd1157
2098 F20101124_AABWXE schmid_a_Page_030.txt
38828d4bfa4a0fa9bcebd52d225f9fc2
e829922467107a640d5901f152ee1b02d72050bc
3424 F20101124_AABXBV schmid_a_Page_008thm.jpg
d85acbf23d71e4822b1c92e7dd1fd769
7d4c4800cc8005887f81fb0cda7416ce670fdab7
2044 F20101124_AABWWP schmid_a_Page_015.txt
a87a97c8a1faf69dd7b685dc5043afda
0ee61c5ee21d205bad7721ca2c9c927fdc423376
5579 F20101124_AABXCL schmid_a_Page_017thm.jpg
53c36e4ae75d6f5affbf1fc480992ca5
4fb4cdef001d43359c612ba59337b9bf055ce155
1934 F20101124_AABWXF schmid_a_Page_031.txt
3ada0c5c058e1846a3264ec76b2aa431
ed988a1c75f3f52c7194f4c5f7e44cb7c4eff1da
19168 F20101124_AABXBW schmid_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
d9e2e62d63e8f1db9363678bf3612417
6d7883d0253784f1fbbe801277d4b23d515dad09
2035 F20101124_AABWWQ schmid_a_Page_016.txt
1d73dd7308da8da8e22b1b20f145d83b
da0a3969b09c770d811aa18f1b5e5794d6a264a2
22369 F20101124_AABXCM schmid_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
5104bb71d88847e1f3c3559f5f9229cf
2dbd8156e4aca6763e8ab21f599fcfb29ff6349d
1906 F20101124_AABWXG schmid_a_Page_032.txt
4cfbb48f21f573c98fcf73bfcf933da6
d37f880380f37c25657868613d8c06532fc8b622
5410 F20101124_AABXBX schmid_a_Page_009thm.jpg
5ddc82b288f1ca502ffb9feab4a0c82d
b62b196eba968f9811ae7bde69b8986420ae7523
1633 F20101124_AABWWR schmid_a_Page_017.txt
37818bcb5a8be970e7abe316e62ae7b6
8295b5356140e0ab8bf75135441caae28ac10845
23483 F20101124_AABXDA schmid_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
7a0625e53491cc73c1c238fe6019196f
0b7b6c7b22ce6439f5ed318b4d3b881db2e325a1
6252 F20101124_AABXCN schmid_a_Page_018thm.jpg
ad4a62bcd47afeecd704b4b2b526a1b9
48f040ff35f9f5e35c53a93c6368111bd0169786
1923 F20101124_AABWXH schmid_a_Page_034.txt
dfc7313b7d1970252b9e53cd5fc531ad
6f6bc6519dc736feb3f8c4bf33ffbdc3b1ae9602
4400 F20101124_AABXBY schmid_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
f42fd376f125e1e770fed088670e8dc6
907edccef0be5c6b49a540d19bbae98bd0d867af
1963 F20101124_AABWWS schmid_a_Page_018.txt
49f2991a40db3243cf25a63e926d284f
2d8bf72faae9650a0d241f84e03784777570cd0a
6585 F20101124_AABXDB schmid_a_Page_028thm.jpg
e3f026a75d020faf2b7f64178ba41211
952e37de40fbe11665d01e8be80ceb900a7c10ad
6332 F20101124_AABXCO schmid_a_Page_019thm.jpg
06674bd74cc68e4b3332c1fba5f62a18
9cba1a85777e65e119ec76c639b052e74192fca1
1745 F20101124_AABXBZ schmid_a_Page_010thm.jpg
ab9bc9fc15b8fc9ebc3c5d4edcc38564
c4aa0e9df9fc988e431b1c0909a016b147dd5a25
1957 F20101124_AABWWT schmid_a_Page_019.txt
fe05ec27857b70cfcc5d9eff2a06a7be
c8ac94da3ea430b7e3b3186726a6b67d43f487a2
23753 F20101124_AABXDC schmid_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
201ab7f76771327db42212a99c33e920
ad78a2818f8cfca8e6a900aea7c4dd7dcd65972e
5220 F20101124_AABXCP schmid_a_Page_020thm.jpg
d9deed99ab3a1d1f6f7025ee200600e3
5c4613b3caffcda396d30b31f6a336cf02a08ac4
2053 F20101124_AABWXI schmid_a_Page_036.txt
dfd554af729ea5d28e8b0e0b1d0f85db
e04c73b88789f28bb1865f74f5ea2357a031afd6
1902 F20101124_AABWWU schmid_a_Page_020.txt
9faada7bedd6ada98ae31d75f4951a07
c231f21337fc697228191225107a9adf143008cf
6524 F20101124_AABXDD schmid_a_Page_029thm.jpg
36a7d9793de40b445f0d501688293ce6
c199f7680b72ba255b3f45941dfa407608b05479
20808 F20101124_AABXCQ schmid_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
fe1eff56a07ee87713aa27f38a97ae84
e3f6c77080cbec63cdff1099c420bdfb0e4c6b2a
1914 F20101124_AABWXJ schmid_a_Page_037.txt
f6e6521ec04d3d4e0f8ca75149ddda99
b23abeede9d1cbb7768af3b5162b95709b4262db
505 F20101124_AABWWV schmid_a_Page_021.txt
bca6a20f20a0d947e5ad0a431366a18c
626f97bb2c477a9807973de47e28c96181ed72e2
21978 F20101124_AABXDE schmid_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
987d075b6dab52f790561f0c192dadd8
b9815f4409ab68556704780be64ee960cdf0ec09
5708 F20101124_AABXCR schmid_a_Page_022thm.jpg
24c9e8f4787740544b18f71ffbf57c69
551d97f64a0f16ed0c3e1b7dceccae66fa6be120
2075 F20101124_AABWXK schmid_a_Page_038.txt
ff32768dc3fe9ca7ca90cd51d12bd18e
e381923c5f3133a8016aaffe4a761cf382972a64
1883 F20101124_AABWWW schmid_a_Page_022.txt
c60227e7428f585ec2ee78e4ba263c2d
e5b1b1fc3a10c5f984847e9b10c56baa31932beb
6184 F20101124_AABXDF schmid_a_Page_031thm.jpg
8bfb3906e4b2b76e9e486ee443c47f7a
f05feae1d0d1700b195fd45032505ac87487c476
1945 F20101124_AABWXL schmid_a_Page_039.txt
57555f31f5a4530e04e97a842e762a1d
a67e06dab981dc4812407878fa1842c0ec8eda69
1996 F20101124_AABWWX schmid_a_Page_023.txt
04f2fd431bd89ed0590a82c11e80b307
6bcfaca74dc260dfa1c24ec0653994ac1179be77
6182 F20101124_AABXDG schmid_a_Page_033thm.jpg
18240bc53820b4d2696f6fa47adc174d
2906fa2b136a8c6d252a6017430c7335f6aa6d98
1974 F20101124_AABWYA schmid_a_Page_054.txt
5409bc3e3ce8a15945632b932e9e6693
abfa188c3c978fcd8b2b131c3c81b01d24c90d8e
23300 F20101124_AABXCS schmid_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
512366e1b32d6242f55d7c385dd9a2e7
c8023dbdc12c109910f9f3ffe671c9aff39fcab8
1981 F20101124_AABWXM schmid_a_Page_040.txt
07a0d089e70d0e1b135411a32736fff0
16d8aaff125be0c4742275b0b1238d698837592e
1852 F20101124_AABWWY schmid_a_Page_024.txt
8d1df4174edcb175deee232e4dd8fadc
f4cd1db7743605546c57af69b1ef60368785651a
24162 F20101124_AABXDH schmid_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
90da754ab0d64bdec98b3c8e29d41497
57c1c3de039a7889127fe335f2a8186abbac962f
2226 F20101124_AABWYB schmid_a_Page_056.txt
0a133c2ed0444a0e1e447c7e3cb48c0e
66bcd6bf2b02d93893da514d782d3ae204450d8c
1916 F20101124_AABWXN schmid_a_Page_041.txt
80d09bc09974bb7d1a84154db0bf3c53
4a498a5f47703062ead55614465ccd290c9bccc3
1962 F20101124_AABWWZ schmid_a_Page_025.txt
a0fdceec65ab301c7d614604d29e04e8
0153beaa074aa590ec4829629864d3b9f7a0c4a6
6837 F20101124_AABXDI schmid_a_Page_034thm.jpg
bdedd3a878c7913cc978a4874c0bc6f4
119586448baa25ce14e0d93f326fa430543af319
2241 F20101124_AABWYC schmid_a_Page_057.txt
6be005d90c7a686f4801eb8a96622e76
19ea0c53516577ca2cee3d791ffb612e1c575693
6467 F20101124_AABXCT schmid_a_Page_023thm.jpg
20ce3b96ff2c092fc560e5d2daa5ac14
c1ff21329d93cd7123e35d5e3fac3c27fa500710
F20101124_AABWXO schmid_a_Page_042.txt
0c5d8ea630ce6227a82201fbc3254db9
d3d725b0c116792bd6fe4fff3ddb864150a6b8ea
22588 F20101124_AABXDJ schmid_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
7820b7a3ec403843f918da2f17225d74
1a8c3d5776120ec1646d48762639662d2b9ac2b1
1919 F20101124_AABWYD schmid_a_Page_058.txt
6f95aab18e4b988021ffeebd160e8b35
c8d40ea817941e0701282135546de60f1c075ef9
22284 F20101124_AABXCU schmid_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
c7ff14b0635400c3d6eca374209e2d00
cb1beb24595922dde6906369ab5545f1f9fd2611
2093 F20101124_AABWXP schmid_a_Page_043.txt
4aaf855562773af4a01a7660c6e505cf
30b1cefa0adc01673b7ee4e7aa63f6d715349c05
6660 F20101124_AABXDK schmid_a_Page_035thm.jpg
e3996321f271387b7b8d2582e31d2088
7b3d96b1860b34235faa4955f08f666e3d70b743
2003 F20101124_AABWYE schmid_a_Page_059.txt
9bfe99140bdae0789814e570a7713bac
3ca9390b2d4332d5947e5b2b2ca27915eb79f387
6331 F20101124_AABXCV schmid_a_Page_024thm.jpg
6726c384829f429aad4077cf18ad293c
1216db444f2f02b0c2b8b956601f48fa3003b655
1975 F20101124_AABWXQ schmid_a_Page_044.txt
7c5a2ba43bf9f67dad4f5a8cb15bce81
a4eeccaf1cf980e2a711f100a885399e2e477b2a
24003 F20101124_AABXDL schmid_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
44f6b80eff30fda88f91dce51cda035e
3148b932fcf6403e926f6ed3142c57f9c0f9c098
1138 F20101124_AABWYF schmid_a_Page_060.txt
6424f26d9430741bd97a8fca635ce4ca
b9d5d1618f6536c6c7655eea9e0285bafc88f933
6201 F20101124_AABXCW schmid_a_Page_025thm.jpg
940068535d49300564a77b093247a860
64cae473a04554c07beb324f26e4ced0597b18b2
F20101124_AABWXR schmid_a_Page_045.txt
66fb2a03d89c4cb4640512708c7c40c2
0716a9f8e3afda338c816637d2593cdfaa344fbd
6402 F20101124_AABXEA schmid_a_Page_046thm.jpg
96233c331042898cc64e61f32d299670
bd6cdd923a901c944a58299674b2670ed48f9a03
22193 F20101124_AABXDM schmid_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
569c93adb85aadbb3485ba683ece84ad
df69e4d3dcec25f87e8be415fe30025054968272
1862 F20101124_AABWYG schmid_a_Page_061.txt
feab6a540fee6c6b3f7ff6cde280f9f1
2e9567a60c938fc344d4d923fb4b6076ef23a5bb
6658 F20101124_AABXCX schmid_a_Page_026thm.jpg
69473e3c2fbd4c8dfb86fde74eadf045
4d20ad25da5a78d4af3efa3d81e1fc42fd812e61
1833 F20101124_AABWXS schmid_a_Page_046.txt
7e5b4738cf664d7f298fd82c16e2a951
6a7041385881affa6a0f98e82818b3c871fef0ca
4376 F20101124_AABXEB schmid_a_Page_047thm.jpg
a50143bccccebc180aa3dc26ab84592b
d8c0272d4f0d31bcc4af9b1ee2676de2470bf7e6
F20101124_AABXDN schmid_a_Page_037thm.jpg
01836f8730c0e344e36c03336495f210
6a866be05208a1ca760410584b79b5cd654e9172
2103 F20101124_AABWYH schmid_a_Page_062.txt
d9001cb6b2a0035979678518c39e637b
ac97a6dbcebd489cf5fe2c593de3b210224d7640
20759 F20101124_AABXCY schmid_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
b2f39426a180d39dcdf138b1565b72ae
0d461000d0588fb951c804ae1274093975a6a6c2
1192 F20101124_AABWXT schmid_a_Page_047.txt
3ab5ab643840a25f2f873882e88c8380
715a0446e20c964c2dd94b34e2468f5b3d1ee2be
24154 F20101124_AABXEC schmid_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
1b77f41a48b1a99cc9cedb21125e3b45
b864f62be0b64872ea420fb4c3ed07b49d9de4b3
7185 F20101124_AABXDO schmid_a_Page_038thm.jpg
bb8855df712e32be56af42bc7404288f
efce85aae42f69d6786af7a5156a179196f56432
1928 F20101124_AABWYI schmid_a_Page_063.txt
f5249bc3f7156424127748e0d2f2ffff
36807cf7f7706180311ef845f854059965acbb2e
5654 F20101124_AABXCZ schmid_a_Page_027thm.jpg
0cbaf96ac6a8e68e23a1e542adb677fd
172abbae6946f7c6305df3884a597983dee4f8c8
1695 F20101124_AABWXU schmid_a_Page_048.txt
8068b38bf7b0a2ab57c290de706c247c
e46d6b688404cdf25d50fa06dd5c489c5590ffd5
6593 F20101124_AABXED schmid_a_Page_049thm.jpg
c6d0bd326743b8bedcad2bf851b051d3
441061606617ee53ac7a87511450fc212e8eec31
23869 F20101124_AABXDP schmid_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
affab2fb7bb3771c28827cdfcdc0194a
1fcee83018fdb644a320af6053387d4dc0db7bc5
2131 F20101124_AABWXV schmid_a_Page_049.txt
c38cd62c4e53eaa85d5ede807f87a832
a87fbec3b786a12a2d79bffa6a25d0b3301f83eb
23125 F20101124_AABXEE schmid_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
93a1e94d39d679724ab14b3c9f235e60
ba1423cca6f2aea5162ddc1dcc957192a0652e6f
6735 F20101124_AABXDQ schmid_a_Page_039thm.jpg
5f2f90cd5f0e694d40d3f4aa37e09bf2
60caa98c6d23717d2d93c1bf6bf3cf21f59ab28d
1917 F20101124_AABWYJ schmid_a_Page_064.txt
98f7b142ce9fe8ae5c1b364fc9438a75
e088b6b31cc71c0d9222b8537fbf9de505898cfc
2009 F20101124_AABWXW schmid_a_Page_050.txt
8f93811c74d588a3cb0f323062d37da6
8e3af9f5cd5f971fbf19466ccc6a37dc1eb5d68a
6457 F20101124_AABXEF schmid_a_Page_050thm.jpg
1640c2faef9ac91687ccda1abcf9d3ee
1948d740664bec084c62595e20b8f6ddc9c9ba62
23401 F20101124_AABXDR schmid_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
5dca7b592937a549d13b30aee8486618
022444dce5f1a5f4346ce48384b7c83a363167f8
1997 F20101124_AABWYK schmid_a_Page_065.txt
4f2cbd26fd33cc752e3db61088da498c
ebfa5aa7a66cbadebca1a4eead841dd1f1c387eb
2052 F20101124_AABWXX schmid_a_Page_051.txt
d3a35454cee52b7cbaac0e56ab86ce91
686f32a5662faa485c1ec6f261405a6aed485a4f
6751 F20101124_AABXEG schmid_a_Page_051thm.jpg
24401a9e224734eb2914920b133d6225
5d3bb312d37c81fbb70b51720b9695bf4ba6d0cc
2087 F20101124_AABWZA schmid_a_Page_083.txt
e881793749f65aaa89a97d72e13e5f52
20b692513c189b137bc19b51d32d0b74c93aa874
6518 F20101124_AABXDS schmid_a_Page_040thm.jpg
385c7ee7d1a946a52c538b9cf79e4622
ceb7e3af2ecfe485846c981fb6019e06370bbec9
F20101124_AABWYL schmid_a_Page_066.txt
ee6884d0be1b9bfe27620d3659a666ff
ee9a65ab6f5dd43c4f37ce5f20d74fc1be7a97c7
F20101124_AABWXY schmid_a_Page_052.txt
f14f42f3f5a4f68781d5291f54d36be2
2b9279753781465cf07244ecd1e5138cb833761b
23725 F20101124_AABXEH schmid_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
c2aa48133106001fbf1881fac2d527cf
e5fc618679b708af04923ce6dfb9b853e03cc0e7
2083 F20101124_AABWZB schmid_a_Page_084.txt
0425e143046df14f3a6c13a3c464fba5
732e098b1f48b2721230f31f19f979eb7bab5195
1766 F20101124_AABWYM schmid_a_Page_067.txt
27acbd2dcb64a6ae47487252a64e3587
e1eb4ed08ddc1f168bea3fd20405a0d9b04b1f9f
1903 F20101124_AABWXZ schmid_a_Page_053.txt
eb659f11dff8262838c96342f475ec57
c330fafea48dca5453f2121c9ff1c7877eaf4d69
6579 F20101124_AABXEI schmid_a_Page_052thm.jpg
fc1c50dfaf2afba9d0377427926e2527
cd88fa94a1e41f4b44cbf054367b988b3ac8910c
2084 F20101124_AABWZC schmid_a_Page_085.txt
41d57faeff72518c0b798b7deecad5c2
f72561764a4846dc54c9312a6f8421f15c44f152
24318 F20101124_AABXDT schmid_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
e8bb0882e2d4ce7fecf46c288d3a344e
c11fdc0a162d7c7e1ab11b4a11a63b19e8aeeef1
2020 F20101124_AABWYN schmid_a_Page_068.txt
7a52051d6f277191894b822376e48975
6e05b722e2d4fed1cdaa18f5cd74532900a94d5d
22798 F20101124_AABXEJ schmid_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
4020790b32e5bc48b9589b1cd53610f3
725f99f6af8bb8d6fd80ff6e41d8859ff68df396
F20101124_AABWZD schmid_a_Page_086.txt
0fdf4245035e19bee4d2a70d0e712b92
6e872e12d29c10cc71ce4043c0e1aea52c0d32fc
6847 F20101124_AABXDU schmid_a_Page_041thm.jpg
0b7042e3bbc8c545abaaa107410bc3ed
778bf3f14fba55ea34ed3811731d79f72db068fd
2011 F20101124_AABWYO schmid_a_Page_069.txt
4d78fb2cf8b944e0248f63f8c91170fb
26252b912958300b06b44fc45f3f20de4389f72c
6347 F20101124_AABXEK schmid_a_Page_054thm.jpg
3e4f6b04ef6f6cb7ac9859252a39777a
cff6dcb994c23afadd287ed6ea0e87c7e45dc776
1907 F20101124_AABWZE schmid_a_Page_087.txt
dcf6821698369b91f21590607f8a2e4a
0c73dedf420d0bffe31c7765d5971021ea349800
6703 F20101124_AABXDV schmid_a_Page_042thm.jpg
67f928f542a3ba3975245a2935253819
1962e7b9dafe6e28a22b00a9075e2715808573c9
2426 F20101124_AABWYP schmid_a_Page_070.txt
3fa7ba965d91c19fce43231323b7b12b
2b0d59c5ae2421000a88ee2d598f5c89786ed1de
24020 F20101124_AABXEL schmid_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
8d269e71b5b74a8035fab63f6db9ce71
cdf2d70b7e905389295bc69be4fdb011fcc63709
1941 F20101124_AABWZF schmid_a_Page_088.txt
a838dd4371e175fbe47c485b1a8dc87f
fdb6a88d4e1ef4131a71de4dd7c9072caf24c747
6815 F20101124_AABXDW schmid_a_Page_043thm.jpg
0fc4ed7840f9c23bb002a4bebb7d1c51
3017f776679a2df8d7c7648bfee6e80d50c2f0c0
2255 F20101124_AABWYQ schmid_a_Page_071.txt
a7b8cea0b6375073ebfaa77bc2e897a5
465cc9e23d45b7a1d692fbd9121544802a6fba15
6215 F20101124_AABXEM schmid_a_Page_056thm.jpg
334a66b78db76db21d41b4d7518d6cd4
a20d6a1c60259376795c372f82d03549127de45d
188 F20101124_AABWZG schmid_a_Page_089.txt
804b3c9aaaaa0e43ae22ece327b6d836
6a52a94da17c3447d25fae172f78bf97396fe349
22786 F20101124_AABXDX schmid_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
d432a15fddba8a92cc6fc2f785ebf613
c4820bfe69743b0499d76b6e5257e8b9a47092f5
2402 F20101124_AABWYR schmid_a_Page_072.txt
a34ecc9b1b877c0744346371c0674eb5
6303bb8f1f1af29236043134877a7f79296dcfd0
6185 F20101124_AABXFA schmid_a_Page_065thm.jpg
780a78a7a5e261c1759316c549d6a6d6
a0bd24ee381d93600f52c8f8d2fcb85c1a733d73
22736 F20101124_AABXEN schmid_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
5e00ea192c4e4e48fe992ff6e8d7533c
bd5844c82441ce4922b7fcff98d32f904925044d
1848 F20101124_AABWZH schmid_a_Page_090.txt
64db54b409ad2605cbbf232d41fbd61f
a284d97a80a04221214f298ee6b3ad8e2f974b7a
F20101124_AABXDY schmid_a_Page_045thm.jpg
b2884f990d18026006324a0e672ebefe
16dbe2b7b01bae62fa1318704d91d2146913af25
2211 F20101124_AABWYS schmid_a_Page_073.txt
f04175aaef03d88cca26a59589adfddd
d42660b541c9d14fa26a22046decb97288925d0c
20786 F20101124_AABXFB schmid_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
b4b562ee408408ac7af4e9568372ead6
bc8ec668f3c07b9234a717ee10d36564399155c9
6207 F20101124_AABXEO schmid_a_Page_057thm.jpg
8d4994863071e9645a0ba015ff764f72
1e01ee13013cdaa3d29e1c54b9f9f4a938188384
1886 F20101124_AABWZI schmid_a_Page_091.txt
a7536ec9da115901b5c8296b6e0f3515
45e0ac7034bfb448d0ee5c686f42384f33c77ac9
22958 F20101124_AABXDZ schmid_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
898e90a68e328bcde60d57d3099047be
b4f91ca9a1c11534e8a21ff6a7f41bd1bc60af2b
2549 F20101124_AABWYT schmid_a_Page_074.txt
eb88394aadaaeb68522dc06cc5c58d64
837ada8fe2f332bb9da5abdce43e2878fb0fbced
5709 F20101124_AABXFC schmid_a_Page_066thm.jpg
0ba82de5fc7545b7135c0681e2cb42ad
64c329446cd35dcc93bf219bd9b2aa3651cafd00
22795 F20101124_AABXEP schmid_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
426abd8cf2110401e7fb8e270e9a5c7f
628394744c26eb8e9755defb0b3268bf62d1ebcd
2007 F20101124_AABWZJ schmid_a_Page_092.txt
767ad7b6dd4ad7a8d2d350e8d20a31b3
679aedae123b78958cf8d3e94e1dd176c24a3e16
2099 F20101124_AABWYU schmid_a_Page_075.txt
7d57d5317184943db8089b57057a232e
43ce01799f640bf14f3837ad231d93f770b2eab5
20875 F20101124_AABXFD schmid_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
ed151e2a0b68c666620b9a77fc6c8164
9d685a468dbed51f0d134ce8e3eec02b39f79363
23474 F20101124_AABXEQ schmid_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
1bcc09adfdcc35021c655ed03e3135b4
0dc444b77aa2328b0a862cc72182217c59a3c645
2000 F20101124_AABWYV schmid_a_Page_077.txt
2cfc9fc726b74d379700e6669d69e016
9257cd0a6d3d8c7feecc1a8908d2f0b394c8ff00
5879 F20101124_AABXFE schmid_a_Page_067thm.jpg
d8d16f0eec6d863c95c73ab66f528722
d52c394f3d260a352ec89ab49aab31b25ea67c90
6412 F20101124_AABXER schmid_a_Page_059thm.jpg
ae45566898cd536d9d35ca89d31cee10
806830a5dd63cf38dba0c4241b66dba7d22b95ad
1742 F20101124_AABWZK schmid_a_Page_093.txt
b6b67ebcbcca182f5fcfe2d61f839525
d5d2f236f749123fc6901aff91fbb2b4fea7e610
2040 F20101124_AABWYW schmid_a_Page_078.txt
95302dca2b8aac67fc00de5097caf7b6
e8b4a7cfdb720c13896057e9cdf81414c4027d2a
6594 F20101124_AABXFF schmid_a_Page_068thm.jpg
2f17aa82ca84e2c0fdc812a92ba116d7
47a9895eb2c65ab16eb2ae29481e1a83a615a589
14413 F20101124_AABXES schmid_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
84383ff81bb81ddae70ddc248e132ad9
3bf9a25ef8e33a1ae591ac6da21f1491cf3510dd
146 F20101124_AABWZL schmid_a_Page_094.txt
8b8776cd0e00ae4d864135dd802c9b8e
abdaebec6f15ef78e9da16682f4907850b54d748
2005 F20101124_AABWYX schmid_a_Page_079.txt
f05a91ca4c59962149e030221e6fb2ef
e1d9813d7d704d349094261a4f3f09a2c27d2775
21609 F20101124_AABXFG schmid_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
25def73f632217e646091f25ae7b9955
baa09685a05212db96823ab3d9ed45cd3d5364b1
5778 F20101124_AABXET schmid_a_Page_061thm.jpg
935c3e0625bff7f7a2404faaef906754
b2c0599dfe2403c9b9e4f58da392b6f92633d235
6643 F20101124_AABWZM schmid_a_Page_095.txt
dc75912c67e7802b995c568a8729adf5
eb7e50ba6f3e7b2e87c828fb257a310ce0d6002c
1994 F20101124_AABWYY schmid_a_Page_081.txt
c5ab786e1e2aad914fad467a3fca8fd7
0d9b85cfbd0ebf184c78eeeb9739e5879866c6b2
6282 F20101124_AABXFH schmid_a_Page_069thm.jpg
02e9be112df6af6061464af726e84e5f
5095b9762710a62c842349441595b602bd971f90
7069 F20101124_AABWZN schmid_a_Page_096.txt
b430d0bc34ed9e3b4dbc85f54ea2d9fa
a63be95e9514cfabdc14fa698ef507a15919fbbf
2085 F20101124_AABWYZ schmid_a_Page_082.txt
9c6cc598494fb6e28976761fda20a1bd
ffde48aa37576727fd7d840650b221e65cac01c4
24509 F20101124_AABXFI schmid_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
908efde1c89adf242189ef50db4bd4dd
86c695924a85b3bd3cd854e45899493eea294f85
24163 F20101124_AABXEU schmid_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
0191875b83dec6afd16147bd0ad31671
06b53e9cd91da4a8cf6e287361b665b391ea39f4
7790 F20101124_AABWZO schmid_a_Page_097.txt
679e8cf8176edf83fa2c71b408413f3c
17e9d83cd674087e7ad9e3e96cd72984afdf1ff7
6883 F20101124_AABXFJ schmid_a_Page_070thm.jpg
bcd0c33efb9fb709e00942cd292ae80b
018d7914878c1edb939fd81bc9d38d34e11b6965
6637 F20101124_AABXEV schmid_a_Page_062thm.jpg
f78b55e569424a79f008e332086aae9f
b55d424a2e18c5d6233a2c800aac64044efc018c
1851 F20101124_AABWZP schmid_a_Page_098.txt
8462d261e3d2ae77400a3aef7ab5d53b
af0196dfc627715a8d7d43a4fca8a2994e6d50d1
23566 F20101124_AABXFK schmid_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
fbbe4272c29901f881a958ba565b7a1b
c1ecad38bc67291ba30ae56150e13f13a292d8c4
22158 F20101124_AABXEW schmid_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
da87785044b3c0e5d4992c73f38e0fac
2ba50578854cd0b455cf01cd711cff957094fdad
2417 F20101124_AABWZQ schmid_a_Page_099.txt
393f2eaf0de0ae8c4f880450a1e3f4bf
64ca91dd09c39fc0b5d63fb6537cc6ca2d474bdc
6358 F20101124_AABXFL schmid_a_Page_071thm.jpg
b892101901e7daf8cb575669d17a26f3
86f794fb636743a0f1eceea81529b4591f5a4d4a
6338 F20101124_AABXEX schmid_a_Page_063thm.jpg
0f02827269a828f0959fca6c0dac912a
6447402e395c5e603f96a00d8055573003a98299
2604 F20101124_AABWZR schmid_a_Page_100.txt
d536fa584df705a8a9a460ea5110deb1
15c45f6f4bf023f9fe8579109b4da75d5b414c9f
23318 F20101124_AABXGA schmid_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
4359148404f6b10952deba699a7fccf1
60b9ccff5215ea8d4c221028fe4968398fd4a31c
23167 F20101124_AABXFM schmid_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
edc716b113c7f3a1b494790e7f5791fb
c2eb743967b9ac331223efa5b909f0f4b6377e43
22188 F20101124_AABXEY schmid_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
a2a7690b0a1168827a5e3d2698a3fcba
b2d2b16c7921a7f1738959e9cacf9f87c2ee6cfb
2259 F20101124_AABWZS schmid_a_Page_101.txt
4385fdb81be04d8e55563ea40298969d
db6c084727b92ebe4e301e63e0aa9896a9b0d829
F20101124_AABXGB schmid_a_Page_079thm.jpg
251bc016ec889b834a5d750b68ec03bd
8f8e5d38606fc4809a648d6ebd780eac3300ed69
6349 F20101124_AABXFN schmid_a_Page_072thm.jpg
dee354449dc8b2c6d9c43cbe2424b2b7
54620904f540302cad721f5c7417d11959c3c1f6
22673 F20101124_AABXEZ schmid_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
6af18d965736672834a80340351d14a2
be99894370a331aa0debd6300c7f27267be553c8
2242 F20101124_AABWZT schmid_a_Page_102.txt
db8649fb4c0b97f3b5c0512f2f81284b
8c4944e78a617572a05547d80b12bf121d531efc
11744 F20101124_AABWDA schmid_a_Page_003.jpg
70ca2c701f50380f8ec8186651c54370
f0f1ac6d565c9ee0ec275580ce740c93bbeee7e7
24223 F20101124_AABXGC schmid_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
360675f7100a482ac128af02e1e8faa4
0918940a81ee541dd758defd9704554443ad5d8d
23241 F20101124_AABXFO schmid_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
48a74693ebb5b23dbab891cf634a9f88
bb639e525c1520c869a759605eb1c2b5581e554c
2485 F20101124_AABWZU schmid_a_Page_103.txt
58e242f578139f699f5cba2849e40d75
c9aaf5e7efcf80e194ee6e97907732feb4e69559
2216 F20101124_AABWDB schmid_a_Page_055.txt
d6aab1168c6fce348fb586933abef4f6
ee221634d4a591161eccf7f3a32d5a3b0d5d4d55
6746 F20101124_AABXGD schmid_a_Page_080thm.jpg
02066ac4bf34e111b707a2940444eba3
e290ef9ec6f062e4f24ab7b8053740fe881d4157
6392 F20101124_AABXFP schmid_a_Page_073thm.jpg
5789213540db57aec4de071f1919649f
77ce18971ae88297577d24516ccc09fb715b0a04
2358 F20101124_AABWZV schmid_a_Page_104.txt
457f92247372cce6e9ab16ec7a49d2ec
8feed27c1c5c6c65853124ca7ecb014cdff8f91e
22024 F20101124_AABWDC schmid_a_Page_001.jpg
ff07c68ef7310377e0492d4d391be747
c47673a0830430d37bfa4652fe723a9c8812fb02
6557 F20101124_AABXGE schmid_a_Page_081thm.jpg
6b579d0faf987074ea4686c954866c81
31c9a15b0685539d4b927e1f33e94614e67a9b4f
48399 F20101124_AABWCO schmid_a_Page_031.pro
acb9775c3a5d2d9f8dd9f379e9175001
28c90534c5bc4fd9ad9e94ef488d4417ba5a5283
22817 F20101124_AABXFQ schmid_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
1b64a2168e2748852d60b08b65518436
65dcff365d87405b1c126d3625fb3c3dbc98b64a
2343 F20101124_AABWZW schmid_a_Page_105.txt
a7ae4f80352c3296737fee9b22fee570
fe827d5fd1c304163811ee226d12130eeb76b9aa
2288 F20101124_AABWDD schmid_a_Page_107.txt
a0f169e5324d19a7b83c40c7f23bf393
d8ba87b0be1c90e37a671a4f91f7ed1e811f746b
24150 F20101124_AABXGF schmid_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
b162a7ce190bab98c3247772ff927fc9
f4eded68568940791b233ba8d62a7c4b59c0ec43
112281 F20101124_AABWCP schmid_a_Page_049.jp2
9392fb1e8c77be305837b604646eccf9
8cffb1fcb8fe0fc8a971dcf76ff0be1c7e882e58
6181 F20101124_AABXFR schmid_a_Page_074thm.jpg
b7954f56429a6475daf6d0fe0a99f686
6a5dc763af98e53501e96c6dc6ee5d0803c814dd
F20101124_AABWZX schmid_a_Page_108.txt
e7aadc2140a54e024d209df7c8a304ed
2434e9fcea28d95f80901a8e920d875cdc8c7306
1051925 F20101124_AABWDE schmid_a_Page_045.jp2
163f750e537d24b19eb2fdaa9252106b
6066cfeafd820638798ee87f741ad51afcef201f
F20101124_AABXGG schmid_a_Page_082thm.jpg
fc075a0f564934c219cbdb9d39b5852e
0619788bdd751c82b96e39f327eb6abf70b16c0b
22839 F20101124_AABWCQ schmid_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
61e9473a49b0367596485082b804d37f
6a182b40114ebf40f81bd3513ab56c4773216296
24799 F20101124_AABXFS schmid_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
122fc9d5ab847a39b1f31d667c89318b
35caf5a6ad047d3c472c6531c697dfe81ac6c4cb
2320 F20101124_AABWZY schmid_a_Page_109.txt
d4b2d5f1d391464e00ec6bb9c66471e6
17157ac22a30de86d6cae9187b5f6287a4449800
25027 F20101124_AABWDF schmid_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
456ee7b8e37803401d4c89bc7aa4b1b2
4312f6dd548e7e2cb4224c9eca6baae785fe4c78
23544 F20101124_AABXGH schmid_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
dfdce1fb369b7759e484a7f49f349fcd
20609635244ab03673cbe733ce666dd1147b477a
2423 F20101124_AABWCR schmid_a_Page_106.txt
2e2afea320f18457edb264ee0875c98b
9a2b584001766e132042bb910ed000d3f7e7471f
F20101124_AABXFT schmid_a_Page_075thm.jpg
213cddffe16d755066c3d30e87f82093
77f069bd53b37819ab485daf872d05293ce4fc14
2324 F20101124_AABWZZ schmid_a_Page_110.txt
1cde339d7909c02e880f3e6ba9745b34
891a13d261bcaa5697dc149bf8d4d8ac65da7499
5966 F20101124_AABWDG schmid_a_Page_090thm.jpg
4288999e7f33465e22d325aac35fdf2b
38dafebceb52ae7e513cef40b39a247e6825469f
6517 F20101124_AABXGI schmid_a_Page_083thm.jpg
b2a18ba4fbab81e426ecc6f2e9825e4c
8e62e7c51a17fd40e18dd4ddd73e2518b77d7f97
2334 F20101124_AABWCS schmid_a_Page_021thm.jpg
a657a90d2333e173d3c29c500091ff17
444e883933f254748ea179f490fb4f468e69779b
22956 F20101124_AABXFU schmid_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
7ffe401bd01a142be8ea794680d6c234
790a027482b640f1b73b41c70b780c2a68927f9d
22787 F20101124_AABWDH schmid_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
aec879febae8486203df529d228d9947
c70a5f86331fdb8aa67cc48bc79deddcf9295115
24138 F20101124_AABXGJ schmid_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
c9c4fb98fd8c9a29837a6ff7643ff6cd
a38daf91e38a70810bdad7d96378d1f04a15c973
6092 F20101124_AABWDI schmid_a_Page_091thm.jpg
f31bc5e9f366a2f258950bdfe8a5d79d
d63fa74d919435fac37085bcbd393a5998cf6361
6698 F20101124_AABXGK schmid_a_Page_084thm.jpg
cf1569669a079bbaa86c26b24ae2ce44
324ef782bbc2ea8882aa63d6566ec9fb7d31f549
4172 F20101124_AABWCT schmid_a_Page_118thm.jpg
0184de30c10383d014b051c601597572
3e2b1ae182424ddd8cf8795ad77fc590113248cf
6565 F20101124_AABXFV schmid_a_Page_076thm.jpg
4c7447de4c1a72bb4c062ac8a5b2310b
11d573376fe99c8d3cb693bc9fe966a60196e4e8
84288 F20101124_AABWDJ schmid_a_Page_096.pro
de37533e0a45843e9d573ec33d19fced
8cb62ce847370c0e252cc473550e343f8d4679f6
6510 F20101124_AABXGL schmid_a_Page_085thm.jpg
46bd8027db58512e8f045e9233e04eff
e442442e06ac2a7d6641f40415a5c17c2b42b02a
111572 F20101124_AABWCU schmid_a_Page_068.jp2
96167606cd921c8628d7fbb0e0a48fe6
4d125509f1844ae772d79b5a11ff8c35f5176289
22972 F20101124_AABXFW schmid_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
50ea6720bbccb8189902e3082319c05f
b852160e8e26fa84d8d4518f3405e4ade02701f6
10760 F20101124_AABXHA schmid_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
575cfb07d3cc7f571abff7557105c204
533a951fe1a03e14802b165391d105785b69cbae
48308 F20101124_AABWDK schmid_a_Page_087.pro
568855a29b4c05385ff89df1465e4fd4
7d6f6141bf71bae7dc73035fead710fad4bb550a
22397 F20101124_AABXGM schmid_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
2b9219b0ae8b84ab474be7c975fd9640
1eda7439a6d9b792a0e1ada8a773ddca9215bcd9
F20101124_AABWCV schmid_a_Page_035.tif
bf8212fd1d4f4e68afc40fa857c41f6a
9c94f68108b6b613ff0b09076a0fe89820798a68
6506 F20101124_AABXFX schmid_a_Page_077thm.jpg
adb4399c62f483451fe72f40d4d6bf38
e9f77b1ec0ff1c276e87a3cf2f235fc05ebf8782
3276 F20101124_AABXHB schmid_a_Page_095thm.jpg
e9f31d02e05db665b3acf0b4c8a119a2
990b09dc80e2c52948c4cfd072fd2f916474b8e2
25954 F20101124_AABWDL schmid_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
dc23d82cb0846524c7d44ab8100e342c
a240cad70691fb7a2f4ecf02a61df0c21230f412
F20101124_AABXGN schmid_a_Page_086thm.jpg
68a8818a602544168ac03034d9f8eb6b
76f6482f88d3fff5109b5b2811676d34317c6ccf
4143 F20101124_AABWCW schmid_a_Page_060thm.jpg
d9ba477592e1bd7f72feea0a9f38779b
bb0271925da51d05cbb434c7409d34bca2289931
23247 F20101124_AABXFY schmid_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
15009397a793ef2109c4c6fd37ed5c1a
3c35e2b09c3b47b097abe212d4a7999a85e35723



PAGE 1

IMPACT OF POST-STROKE MOBILITY ON ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPATION By ARLENE ANN SCHMID A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Arlene Ann Schmid

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated in the me mory of my father, Albert R. Schmid.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have gotten me to this phase of my life. I thank my parents and sister for unending support and love, for always telli ng me that I could be successful. I thank my mother for teaching me that I c ould always be more, and do more. I thank Dr. Pamela Duncan for reminding me that I could always be more and do more everyday. I would never be here wit hout her support and dedi cation to my future. I also thank Dr. Maude Rittman for con tinuous encouragement and assistance, and wonderful everyday conversation that got me through this process. The rest of my committee, Dr. Lorie Richards and Michael Marsiske, have provide d wonderful guidance for many of the years that I have been pur suing my graduate degree, but have been outstanding as a dissertation committee. Friendship has been a wonderful requiremen t of graduate school, I think we would not survive without each other. I am honor ed to have known so many extraordinary people who will do so many great things. I am especially grateful for the friendship of Jessica, Roxanna, Rick, Ellen, Diane, Cesar, Jordan (thanks for the dog sitting too!!) and my neighbors, Nate and Gretchen. Michelle deserves her own sentence. She has been a great support, and always seemed to know wh at to do, plus those car rides to Buffalo created some type of weird bond (and I knew she would complain if she did not have your own line!!!). Megan (Meggy!!!) has been an outstanding friend, and has provided great information regarding th e Midwest!! And Marieke! My IL! She is the strangest

PAGE 5

v person I ever met. She is a great friend and has been so good to me. I thank her for being fabulous! Thank you all for everything, I am glad we have crossed paths The boys, the PhDemons, how will I ever get through th is new phase of my life without them? From day one we have depended on each other, and have grown to become something we never knew was possi ble. Michael and Dennis have provided wonderful friendship and have made this time of life so much better. Thanks to the two of them, I have many more happy memories and have had much more fun (as measured by the fun-ometer) than most on their way out of graduate school. But more importantly, they have both provided guidance, and I hope I have also assisted them along this long long road. And finally to BZ, we have made it th rough this. I now have no question that we can do anything, as long as we do it together. He is the sweetest and most wonderful person and I am very lucky to be spending the re st of my life with him, Kalo, and Maile. I thank him for always reminding me that I was capable of taking on the world.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Theoretical Models.......................................................................................................3 The World Health Organization Mode l: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health...................................................................3 Theoretical Framework.........................................................................................6 Research Questions.......................................................................................................7 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................9 Introduction................................................................................................................... 9 Mobility in the Commun ity Dwelling Elderly............................................................10 Gait Velocity.......................................................................................................11 Gait velocity as an outcome measure...........................................................11 Gait velocity and other aspects of mobility..................................................12 Falls.....................................................................................................................12 Incidence and consequences of falls in the community dwelling elderly....12 Multifactorial risk factors.............................................................................13 Number of risk factors..................................................................................14 Fear of falling as a risk fact or and consequence of falls..............................15 Fear of Falling.....................................................................................................15 Incidence of fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly...................16 Fear of falling risk factors............................................................................17 Mobility in the Post-Stroke Population......................................................................18 Stroke and Mobility Impairment.........................................................................18 Stroke...................................................................................................................18 Gait Velocity After Stroke...................................................................................19 Falls After Stroke................................................................................................22

PAGE 7

vii Stroke as a risk factor for falls.....................................................................23 Post-stroke hip fractures...............................................................................24 Fear of Falling After Stroke................................................................................24 Post-stroke balance confidence....................................................................24 Post-stroke fear of falling assessments.........................................................25 Post-stroke fear of falling.............................................................................26 Activity and Participation...........................................................................................26 Restriction of Activity and Participation.............................................................26 Gait Speed, Activity, and Participation...............................................................27 Falls, Activity, and Participation.........................................................................29 Fear of Falling, Activity, and Participation.........................................................30 Caregivers...................................................................................................................31 Stroke and Caregiving.........................................................................................31 Mobility Disability and Caregiving.....................................................................32 Caregiver Depression..........................................................................................33 Caregiver Burden.................................................................................................33 Summary of the Literature Review.............................................................................34 3 THE IMPACT OF POST-STROKE GAIT VELOCITY CHANGES ON ACTIVITY AND PA RTICIATION...........................................................................35 Introduction.................................................................................................................35 Methods......................................................................................................................37 Design..................................................................................................................37 Participants..........................................................................................................38 Outcome Measures..............................................................................................39 Gait velocity.................................................................................................39 Activity and participation.............................................................................40 Statistical Analysis..............................................................................................41 Results........................................................................................................................ .41 Discussion...................................................................................................................44 4 FEAR OF FALLING AFTER STROKE....................................................................48 Introduction.................................................................................................................48 Methods......................................................................................................................50 Design..................................................................................................................50 Sample.................................................................................................................50 Data Collection....................................................................................................51 Outcome Measures..............................................................................................53 Functional status...........................................................................................54 Cognitive status............................................................................................54 Depression....................................................................................................54 Caregiver demographics, burden, and coping..............................................55 Analysis of Quantitative Data.............................................................................55 Results........................................................................................................................ .56 Description of Sample.........................................................................................56

PAGE 8

viii Relationships Between Fear of fallin g, Functional Status, and Depression........56 The Experience of Fear of Falling Post-Stroke...................................................60 Onset of falling with the stroke event..........................................................61 Experiencing the changed body...................................................................62 A pervasive fear of the unpredictable..........................................................64 Falls as an everyday life experience.............................................................66 Strategies for managing fear of falling.........................................................66 Discussion...................................................................................................................70 Characterization of Fear of Falling......................................................................71 Limitations...........................................................................................................74 Future Research...................................................................................................74 5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................77 APPENDIX EVIDENCE BASED TABLE FOR FE AR OF FALLING AND ACTIVITY RESTRICTION..........................................................................................................81 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................105

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. Multifactorial risk factors for falls...........................................................................14 2-2. Six ambulation categories........................................................................................20 2-3. Gait Speed Classification.........................................................................................20 2-4. Community ambulation............................................................................................22 3-1. Community ambulation and gait speed....................................................................36 3-2. Baseline characteristics for participat ions with initial gait speed < 0.8 m/s (success = advancing to a highe r ambulation classification)...................................42 3-3. Proportions of success/fail for transiti oning to next ambulation classification between baseline and 3 months................................................................................43 3-4. Three month outcomes for entire sample.................................................................43 3-5. Three month outcomes stratified by gait speed........................................................44 4-1. Coding structure for qualitative interviews..............................................................53 4-2. Baseline data for those with a nd without fear of falling (FoF)................................56 4-3. Baseline/discharge data for those discu ssing fear of falling at one and six months57 4-4. Baseline/discharge data and outcome m easures for those with and without fear of falling...................................................................................................................58 4-5. Scoring of FAI and FIM items for t hose with and without fear of falling...............59 4-6. Frequency counts of fear of falling at one and six months......................................59 4-7. Proportions of those with and with out fear of falling and chi square......................59 4-8. Comparison of caregivers for participan ts with and without fear of falling............60

PAGE 10

x 4-9. Content analysis frequencies (deriv ed from 55 qualitative interviews)...................61 A-1. Fear of falling and activity restriction......................................................................82

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. The ICIDH-2 Model of Disablement.........................................................................4 1-2. Conceptual Model......................................................................................................7

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IMPACT OF POST-STROK E MOBILITY ON ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPATION By Arlene Ann Schmid August 2005 Chair: Pamela W. Duncan Major Department: Rehabilitation Science Post-stroke individuals often experience re sidual mobility impairments, reflected in decreased gait speed, increased falls, and the possible developm ent of fear of falling. This research utilized two secondary analyses to ex plore the impact of post-stroke gait velocity and fear of falling on activ ity and participation. The first study examined clinically meani ngful changes in gait velocity in 64 poststroke individuals. Velocity was measured at baseline and three months and was placed into a three tier ambulation classification. T-tests determin ed a difference in functional ability (activities of daily living (ADLs), in strumental activities of daily living (IADLs), mobility, and social participation) between those who did and did not successfully advance to the next ambulati on classification. After stratifyi ng by baseline gait velocity and controlling for age, those most severely impaired at baseline, and who advanced classifications, demonstrated si gnificant differences in all me asured functional abilities. In comparison, those moderately impaired on ly demonstrated signi ficant differences in

PAGE 13

xiii social participation. Thus, clin ically meaningful changes in gait speed were related to highly significant changes in all domai ns, particularly for participation. The secondary objective was to characterize post-stroke fear of falling. Review of qualitative interviews identif ied those with fear of falling. T-tests compared ADLs, IADLs, and depression measures between t hose with and without fear. No significant differences were found for the outcome meas ures; however, those with detected fear exhibited slightly worse scores on all meas ures. Content analysis of the interviews revealed five elements used to characterize pos t-stroke fear of falling: (1) onset of falling with stroke event, (2) ex periencing the changed body, (3) a pervasive fear of the unpredictable, (4) falls as an everyday life e xperience, and (5) the strategies for managing fear of falling. Such experiences and strategies became very individualized and imply the need for future research regarding assessmen t and intervention of post-stroke fear of falling. Collectively, these results indicate that many post-stoke individuals live in the community, but still demonstrate residual mobility deficits. Decreased gait velocity and developed fear of falling were related to activity restriction and modification, possibly leading to further losses of independence, plac ing individuals at risk for decreased quality of life and life satisfaction.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The American Heart Association reports stroke to be a common diagnosis occurring in 700,000 people annually. Stroke is the primary cause of disability and the third leading cause of death for those over 65 [1-4 ]. Stroke is also classified as the most disabling chronic disease and the cumulativ e consequences are often staggering for individuals, families, and society [5, 6]. Re sidual motor, sensory, and visual post-stroke deficits make mobility impairments common. Ch anges in gait velocity, falls, and fear of falling are common post-stroke mobility impairments. All may contribute to decreased performance of activities of daily living (ADL s), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), social participation, and over all declines in quality of life. The purpose of this disserta tion is to report findings fr om two studies. Both studies are secondary analyses of larger studies. Th e goal of the first study was to evaluate a clinically meaningful change in post-stroke gait speed and its impact on activity and participation levels post-stroke. A clinically meaningful change is important to determine as it is related to patient-valued benefits Barrett et al. discusses the need to merge patient-oriented and evidence-based framewor ks together by observing an “important difference” [7]. Such clinical significance can be seen by examining the sufficiently important difference (SID), the smallest am ount of patient-valued benefit required from an intervention to justify associated costs, risks, and other harms. We observed data on post-stroke gait speed changes and the exis ting relationship with ADLs, IADLs, and social participation to examine a clinically meaningful change in gait velocity.

PAGE 15

2 Data for this aspect of the study were derived from a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, clinical intervention trial [8]. An analysis of three-month poststroke data related to gait speed was complete d. Participants were stratified by changes in gait speed. Comparisons were completed to determine significant differences in ADL, IADL, and social participation scores betw een those who succeeded and those who failed to increase gait speed at three months poststroke. Literature supports an association between gait speed and mobility [9, 10]. However, limited research currently exists to support the relationship between changes in gait speed and the resu ltant difference in performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation. The second study was completed to identify and describe the characterizations of fear of falling as reported by participants who have been discharged home following a stroke. We used qualitative and quantitative data from a longitudinal multi-site cohort study exploring stroke recovery and caregi ving at one and six m onths post discharge following acute stroke [11]. We examined th e relationship between fear of falling and demographic variables, depression, and th e ability to perform ADLs and IADLs. Additionally, caregiver depres sion and burden associated with fear of falling was explored. Qualitative interviews were semi-s tructured around issues related to the poststroke experience but did not specifically ask about fear of falling. Therefore, the interviews were examined to identify particip ants who discussed char acteristics related to fear of falling. The data specific to those with an identified fear were re-coded in QSR N6 (qualitative data computer software) C ontent analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data and define characterizations of fear of falling across 6 months after discharge home post acute stroke. Currently, th ere is a paucity of information related to

PAGE 16

3 the development of fear of fa lling after stroke. This study provi des initial exploration into this complex syndrome and will supply prelim inary data for future research regarding post-stroke fear of falling and the residual in fluence it has on activities and participation. Cumulatively, these research projects pr ovide researchers and clinicians with valuable information regarding performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation related to both gait speed a nd fear of falling after stroke. The impact of post-stroke gait speed on ADLs and IADLs is not well research ed and this study contributes critical information. This research is the first st udy to examine fear of falling in a stroke population with longitudi nal data that are both quantitati ve and qualitative. Results from the study indicates the need for development of a future index related to fear of falling in the population, and, more importantly, interventi ons to reduce both falls and manage fear of falling in the post-stroke population. These studies prov ide a foundation for future research related to post-stroke mob ility and activities and participation. Theoretical Models Two theoretical models have guided this research. The Interna tional Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health was used to explain the fundamental relationships between post-stroke mobility and ADLs, IADL s, and participation (see Figure 1-1). An additional conceptual model was specifically proposed for these re search study questions. It was developed after a review and synthesis of the literature specific to gait velocity and fear of falling (see Figure 1-2). The World Health Organization Model: Inte rnational Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Various models of disablement have been developed and explored over the years. Because rehabilitation strives to reverse wh at was previously known as the “disabling”

PAGE 17

4 process, proactive alterations have occurred in the theoretical models. Therefore they are now termed “enablement models”, and repr esent models of hea lth and ability. The International Classification of Functioning, Di sability, and Health (ICF) is the model most frequently used in rehabilitation sc iences and was proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [12, 13]. The ICF has recently undergone revisions to better incorporate the concepts of health and ability and to replace terms such as impairment, disability, and handicap to allow for a more positive framework and clas sification system [13]. The ICF provides a framework for the analysis of health conditions, body stru cture, body functions, activity and participation, and environmental and person al factors [12]. There are two parts of the ICF; the first deals with func tioning and disability and is derived of the components of body structure, body functions, activity, and pa rticipation. The second part includes the components of contextual factors and include s environmental and personal factors. See Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. The ICIDH-2 Model of Disablement Body structures are the anatomical parts of the body and include organs, limbs, and their components. Body functions are the phys iological or psychological functions of Activities Body Structure & Body Functions Environmental Factors Personal Factors Health Condition (disorder/disease) Participation Activities Body Structure & Body Functions Environmental Factors Personal Factors Health Condition (disorder/disease) Participation

PAGE 18

5 body systems. Body function and structure im pairments are related to significant deviation or loss. The activities and participation component collectively covers the complete range of individual and societal functioning a nd disability. The model captures the major actions of all people, regardless of culture or lifespan. Activity is the execution of a task or action that is completed by an indivi dual in a uniform environment. Activity limitations are difficulties a person may have in executing activities. Activity includes self-care, mobility, learning and applyi ng new knowledge, general tasks and demands, and communication. Participation is the involvement in a life s ituation in an individual’s current environment. Restrictions in partic ipation are problems a person may experience in involvement in life situations. Particip ation includes domestic life, interpersonal interactions and involvement in relationships major life areas, and community, social, and civic life. Activities and pa rticipation have two qualifiers within the model. Capacity is the completion of an item in a neutral or standard environment and focuses on how an individual actually completes the task. Performance is related to completing the same item during daily life, at home and in the envi ronment. Capacity limitations indicate the discordance between capacities of people with and without health related condition. Performance limitations indicate a need for in tervention at the environmental level. Environmental and personal factors include external features of the physical, social, and attitudinal environment in which peopl e live and conduct their lives. Products and technology, natural environments, human-made changes to the environment, support and relationships, attitudes, a nd services, systems, and po licies are all aspects of environmental and personal factors.

PAGE 19

6 Theoretical Framework Substantive reviews of the li terature were completed. The literature pertaining to post-stroke mobility, gait speed, falls, and fear of falling were incorporated into the ICF model (see Figure 1-2). It was us ed to guide the research ques tions and analyses for these studies. In this study, the general health condition was “stroke.” The type of stroke and severity of stroke are important aspects th at may impact post-stroke mobility. Stroke related body function and body structure included sensory, cognitive, and motor impairments. Environmental factors include d caregiver depression, burden, and coping. Personal factors included age, race, and cogni tion. These stroke related impairments and personal factors might be related to activity limitations; such as difficulties completing ADLs and IADLs, including walking, stair cl imbing, dressing, bath ing, toileting, etc. Mobility is a construct of ADLs and is ther efore considered an as pect of activity. Gait speed and fear of falling are each aspects of post-stroke mobility, and are therefore considered as activity. It is thought that losses in gait speed and the de velopment of fear of falling adversely impact ADLs, IADLs, a nd social participation. Body function and structure impairments and esp ecially activity limitations ma y restrict participation in society, thereby limiting role fulfillment at home, work, and within the social environment. All of these post-stroke ch anges may also influence caregiver burden, coping, depression. The current study was develope d to specifically address the relationships between changes in gait speed and the development of fear of falling with ADLs, IADLs, participation, and depression. All aspects of the model may be affected by post-stroke mobility. Activity, participati on, and environmental/personal factors must therefore be

PAGE 20

7 addressed. Importantly, all are re lated to the greater aspect of quality of life and life satisfaction. Figure 1-2. Conceptual Model Research Questions The following research questi ons are derived from the re lationships depicted in Figure 1-2. The conceptual model was the gu iding focus of this study. We used both qualitative and quantitativ e data in this study. We explored the post-stroke relationship between clinically me aningful changes in gait velocity and performa nce of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation. 1. Does a change in gait velocity classifi cation impact the ability to perform ADLs, IADLs, functional mobility, and social participation after stroke? We also explored post-stroke fear of fa lling using qualitative and quantitative data. Our research question related to examinati on of the fear of falling qualitative data include: 2. How do the participants report and characterize fear of falling in the home or community environment? Stroke related impairments Sensory Cognitive Motor ActivitiesADLs and IADLs (including mobility, gait speed and fear of falling ) Body Structure & Body Functions Environmental Factors Personal Factors Health Condition (disorder/disease)Stroke •Type of Stroke •Severity ParticipationSocial participation Caregiver •Depression •Burden •Coping •Age •Race •Cognition Stroke related impairments Sensory Cognitive Motor ActivitiesADLs and IADLs (including mobility, gait speed and fear of falling ) Body Structure & Body Functions Environmental Factors Personal Factors Health Condition (disorder/disease)Stroke •Type of Stroke •Severity ParticipationSocial participation Caregiver •Depression •Burden •Coping •Age •Race •Cognition

PAGE 21

8 To complement the study, we examined the relationship between fear of falling and quantitative data: 3. How is post-stroke fear of falling relate d to performance in ADLs and IADLs? 4. How does caring for an individual with poststroke fear of falling impact caregiver burden and depression? 5. Is there a difference in the proportion of st roke survivors with fear of falling at 1 and 6 months post stroke?

PAGE 22

9 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Stroke is a common problem a nd the leading cause of adu lt disability in the United States. There are many residual motor, sens ory, and visual post-s troke deficits making mobility impairments common. Common post-st roke mobility impairments include decreased gait velocity, falls, and the development of fear of falling. All may negatively impact performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), instru mental activities of daily living (IADLs), and social partic ipation. Such restriction in activity and participation has been associated with declines in li fe satisfaction and quality of life. The following review of the literature is ba sed on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and H ealth (ICF) [12] and the c onceptual framework found in Chapter 1 (Figure 1-1 and 1-2). As stated in Chapter 1, stroke rela ted sensory, cognitive, and motor impairments negatively influence post-stoke mobility, as demonstrated in decreased gait speed and increased falls and f ear of falling. These changes in post-stroke mobility may impact activity a nd participation. Activity and pa rticipation limitations may also negatively influence car egiver burden and depression. In this review of the literature, there will be an overview of mobility concerns of the community dwelling elderly. Sp ecifically, gait speed, falls, and fear of falling will be addressed. The limited existing literature specif ic to post-stroke gait speed, falls, and fear of falling will also be presented. Additional literature is presented on the impact of mobility on activity and particip ation; some is specific to the post-stroke population, but

PAGE 23

10 much is generalized to the community dwel ling elderly. Caregiver burden and depression are also explored in this review as care n eeds change for those with decreased activity and participation. Increased caregiver burde n and depression are associated with a patient’s history of strokes, fa lls, and decreased independence. The objective of this research was to dete rmine the impact of post-stroke mobility on activity and participation. Sp ecifically, the relationships be tween changes in gait speed and the impact on activity and participation were explored. Additionally, the characterization of fear of falling by a poststroke population was described. Performance of ADLs, IADL, and depression for those with fear was also examined. This research will provide foundational data for futu re studies examining the imp act of post-stroke mobility on activity and participation. Mobility in the Community Dwelling Elderly Mobility has been defined as the “ability to move from one place to another without assistance” [14]. It is a component of ADLs and is critical for the maintenance of independence and a sustained qual ity of life [14, 15]. Mobility disability is defined by the inability of individuals to “move effectively in their surroundings” [16]. It is a strong predictor of physical disability and often the first area in which olde r adults demonstrate disabilities [16-18]. The prevalence of mobility disability increases from 7.7% of those over the age of 65 to 35% fo r those over 80 years [19]. Disability is a risk factor for loss of independence, admission into care facilities, increased need for caregiving, and health ca re utilization [20-24]. Those who demonstrate mobility limitations are at risk for increas ed disability, dependence, morbidity, and mortality [17, 25-32]. Mobility limitations have been utilized in predicating disability outcomes [31].

PAGE 24

11 Changes in gait velocity, increased number of falls, and the development of fear of falling are three important aspects of mobilit y. All are common issues for the community dwelling elderly population. Disability may o ccur due to any or all of these mobility changes. Gait Velocity Mobility and mobility disability are co mmonly demonstrated by changes in gait velocities. Gait velocities often decrease with age and have been associated with severity of walking difficulties [33]. Cress et al. found that walking speed was the strongest indicator of self-perceived physical functioni ng [34]. Gait velocity has therefore become a frequently measured outcome and goal of rehabilitation. Gait velocity as an outcome measure Numerous elderly specific research studies have utilized gait velocity as a primary outcome measure to assess mobility impairment [35]. Velocity has been deemed useful in rehabilitation medicine and re search as it correlates well to many gait parameters [36]. It has been related to discharge placement following hospitalization in the elderly population [37, 38]. Gait speed is an important measure of stroke recovery as it is simple to measure and has been demonstrated as reliable and se nsitive to the stage of recovery post stroke [9, 35, 39]. Gait speed has been associated with discriminati on of stroke effects and is related to rehabilitation prognos is [40]. Studenski and colleag ues demonstrated gait speed measures of less than 0.6 meters/second (m/s) as a predictor of future health care utilization and declines in h ealth status [41]. In their st udy, 69% of the elderly with a walking velocity of less than 0.6 m/s devel oped new personal care difficulty as compared to 12% of those walking faster than 1.0 m/s.

PAGE 25

12 Gait velocity and other aspects of mobility Decreased gait speed has been related to falls and fear of falling [42-44]. Hausdorff et al. reported a relationship between falls and factors such as gait speed and functional status [45]. Maki demonstrated a relationshi p between decreased gait speed and increased falls and fear of falling in the commun ity dwelling elderly population [42]. Falls A fall has been defined as “an event wh ich results in a person coming to rest unintentionally on the ground or ot her lower level, not as a result of a major intrinsic event (such as stroke) or overwhelming hazar d” [46, 47] or as “falling all the way down to the floor or ground, or falling and hitting an object like a chair or stair” [48]. Falls are significant mobility issues addressed in the lit erature for the community dwelling elderly. Incidence and consequences of falls in the community dwelling elderly Falls are the leading cause of injurious d eath for those over 65 in the United States [49]. At least 30% of thos e over 65 and residing in the community fall annually; 10-20% fall two or more times [50]. After age 80, a nnual fall rates increase to 50% [46, 51]. The elderly who fall are likely to sustain more fall related trauma and serious injury and demonstrated increased health care utilization compared to young fallers [52]. Fall related trauma is more likely to be the cau se of death in older fallers [53] In 2001, more than 1.6 million emergency room visits and 15,000 deaths were attributable to falls [54]. Se vere consequences related to falls include hip fractures and head trauma, increased health care utilization, declines in ADLs and IADLs, decreased socialization, increased admissions to long-te rm care facilities, prem ature disability, and death [53, 55]. Additionally, King and Tinetti de termined that morbidity, physical injury,

PAGE 26

13 restriction of mobility, reduction of activity a nd participation, and generalized decreases in independence were fall re lated consequences [56]. Long-term care admissions. Donald and Bulpitt completed a longitudinal prospective cohort study to assess fall rela ted deaths and long-term care admissions [57]. Risk of death increased at both one and thre e years for recurrent fallers. However, all who fell demonstrated loss of function and independence, consequently increasing longterm care facility admissions. Tinetti et al. reported 40% of all nursing home admissions as being fall related [46]. Fractures as a consequence of falls. Approximately 360,000 adults suffer a fall related hip fracture each year [49]. Half of those who suffer a hip fracture will never regain their prior level of f unctioning. Hip fractures are a sign ificant concern as they are related to more deaths, disability, and medical costs than all other osteoporotic fractures combined [58]. Falls are an independent risk factor and contribute to 90% of all hip fractures [59, 60]. Minor injuries such as bruises and ab rasions occur after 30 %-55% of falls [48, 51, 61] and about 4%-6% of falls end in a fractur e, often of the hip [46, 48, 61, 62]. Death is uncommon following a fall; however, fall relate d hip fractures are th e leading cause of death for those over the age of 65 [63, 64]. Multifactorial risk factors A review of the literature indicates fall risks are cons idered multi-factorial [46, 51, 52, 65-75]. Meta-analyses and predictive models have been used to determine many of the evidence based risk factors. An epidem iological study determined that over 400 fall risk factors exist [76]. Factors may differ between community dwe lling individuals and those residing in long term care facilities [ 66]. Table 2-1 provides a list of common falls

PAGE 27

14 risk factors. Each factor is supported in the literature a nd by recent meta-analyses [46, 49, 51, 52, 66, 68-71, 77]. Table 2-1. Multifactorial risk factors for falls Risk Factor Supporting Evidence Disease & Disability Stroke [52, 78-86] Parkinson’s Disease [49, 61, 77, 87-89] Cardiovascular function/ disease/blood pressure issues [49, 66, 77, 90, 91] Arthritis [49, 52, 77, 92-94] Neuromuscular disease [49, 77] Depression [49, 52, 66, 77] Mobility Impairments Previous falls [52, 56, 95, 96] Balance and gait deficit [46, 52, 66, 97-100] Decreased gait speed/gait impairments/mobility impairments [42-46, 66, 69, 78, 90, 95, 97, 101] Foot problems [46] Decreased strength [46, 52, 61, 66, 71, 74, 90, 95, 97, 99, 102-109] Other Environmental factors [46, 66, 110, 111] Fear of falling [96, 112-115] Medications and polyphar macy [46, 66, 90, 116, 117] Cognition [46, 52, 66, 90, 118-122] Vision and hearing [48, 52, 66, 90, 97, 123] ADL participation [52, 66, 90, 107, 124] Use of assistive device [52] Female gender [46, 100, 125-130] Age [46, 74, 126, 131-133] Urinary incontinence [66, 69, 74, 134, 135] Number of risk factors The risk of falling is exacerbated when the actual number of exis ting risk factors is increased [46, 70]. Tinetti and colleagues co mpleted a community based study examining those with and without fall risk factors [46]. At one year, 27 % of individuals with one or no risk factors fell compared to 78% of thos e with four or more factors. Nevitt and colleagues indicated falls increased from 10% to 69% as the number of risk factors increased from one to four or more [61]. R obbins et al. compared one-year fall rates for

PAGE 28

15 those with and without three id entified risk factors: hip weakness, unstable balance, more than four medications [100]. One hundred percen t of those with all th ree risk factors fell compared to 12% who had none of the risk fact ors. Furthermore, Tine tti et al. ascertained that falls increased from 0% in those with 03 risk factors to 100% for those with seven or more factors [90]. Fear of falling as a risk fa ctor and consequence of falls Fear of falling has been esta blished as both a risk factor and consequence of falls [96, 112, 113]. Fear of falling may develop pos t-fall, or a fall may occur due to severe issues related to fear of fall ing [96]. Psychological trauma rela ted to a fall may be related to concern of suffering another fall or a resu lt of changes in function and pain related to a previous fall. Additionally, being stranded on the ground after a fa ll is a common fear. Friedman et al. determined fear of falling as a significant risk factor for future falls, and also demonstrated falls as a risk factor for the development of fear of falling [96]. Delbaere and colleagues examined the “vicious” cycle that exists between falls and fear of falling [114]. The authors conc luded fear of falling is both a risk factor and serious consequence of falls. Fear of Falling Fear of falling was first identified an d termed “postfall syndrome” [136] or ptophobia in 1982 [137], and then simply “fear of falling” in the later 1980’s [138, 139]. Fear of falling has been defined as a “dis abling symptom of impaired mobility among frail older people that is signi ficantly associated with depr ession, diminished performance in gait, and restricted IADL” [113] and “as a la sting concern about fall ing that leads to an individual’s avoiding ac tivities that he/she remains capab le of performing” [140]. Others have considered fear of falling as a loss of confidence balance abilities [141, 142]. It has

PAGE 29

16 also been defined as a general concept that describes low confidence (efficacy) for avoiding falls and simply being afraid to fall [143]. Incidence of fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly Fear of falling is a common difficulty faced by the elderly and is one of the greatest fears experience by the elderly [115]. Walker and Howland compared fear of falling to the fear of robbery, fear of forgetting an important appointment, fear of financial difficulties, and fear of losing a cheris hed item. Twenty-five percent of the 115 community based participants determined fear of falling as their greatest fear. Great variability exists surrounding the inci dence of fear of falling and incidence may or may not be related to a previous fall. Researchers have indicated fear of falling in 29%-92% of those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% of those without a recent fall [46, 70, 113, 115, 144-152]. Fear may develop si mply due to knowing someone who had sustained a serious fall or fall related injury [153]. Myers et al. examined fear of falling in community dwelling elders [150]. Fear of falling was assessed by asking “are you afraid of falling?”; 56% of those with a previous fall and 58% without a fall reported being fearful. Further analysis with the Falls Efficacy Scale determined similar results. The author s expressed that fear of falling may be underestimated in the elderly due to a fear of institutionaliza tion and a resultant refusal to participate in such research. Arfken completed a study to better determ ine the prevalence and the correlates of fear of falling [43]. F ear of falling was determined to be more prevalent among the older participants. Dependent on age, 10%-16% of men reported to be moderately fearful and 0%-5% were very fearful. Comparatively, 15 %-34% of women were moderately fearful and 6%-12% were very fearful. More recen tly, Stolze et al. completed a prospective

PAGE 30

17 study to investigate the preval ence of falls in differing neur ological diseases [154]. Prior falls were significantly correlated with fear of falling; 57% of the fa llers reported fear of falling compared to 24% of the nonfallers. Fear of falling risk factors Like falls, fear of falling is considered to have multifactorial risk factors. Other than a previous fall, risk factors correlated to the development of fear of falling include: increased age [43, 144, 148], female ge nder [43, 144, 148, 155, 156], hospitalization [143], and dizziness [157]. Murphy et al. comp leted a study to identif y predisposing risk factors for the development of fear of fa lling in an all female community dwelling population [158]. Predisposing factors for fear development included: age over 80, visual impairments, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of available emotional support. Mobility [42, 155] and prior falls [96, 112, 113] are significant risk factors for the development of future fear of falling. Maki and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study to investigate the relationship between fear of falling and postural balance and control [155]. The researcher s discussed significantly decreased scoring on balance assessments for those with fear of falling. Additionally, Maki et al. demonstrated an association between fear of falling and changes in mobility, such as decreased stride length, decreased speed, increa sed double stance time, decrea sed clinical gait scores, and increased stride [42]. Vellas et al. demonstr ated those with a re ported fear of falling experienced greater balance and gait disorders compared to those without fear of falling [144]. Ultimately, partic ipants with fear of falling e ndured decreases in mobility. Friedman et al. examined the temporal re lationship and the shared predictors of falls and fear of falling [96]. Falls and fear of falling data were coll ected at both baseline and 20 months. If participants were assessed as fearful of falling, they were asked about

PAGE 31

18 fear related activity restricti on. During the initial assessmen t, 27.8% participants reported a fall, 20.8% expressed fear of falling, and 46.2% of those with fear of falling had curtailed activities. At followup, nonfallers with fear were more likely to report falls than those without fear (32.6% vs 17.9%). Fall ers with no fear of fa lling at baseline were twice as likely than nonfallers to report f ear at follow-up (20.6% vs. 11.6%). Regardless of fall status, all who expressed fear of falling at base line were very likely to express fear again at 20 months. Researchers have discussed “evidence of a spiraling effect of increasing falls, fear, and functional decline” [114]. They stated fear of falling is not only an acute outcome secondary to falls, but “more lik ely recognition of being at ris k, both of falling and of the adverse outcomes that can result from falls”. Additionally it was concluded that once fear develops, it is likely to persist and infl uence activities and future fall rates. Mobility in the Post-Stroke Population Stroke and Mobility Impairment Post-stroke residual deficits may exacerbate the mobility issues of the community dwelling elderly population. Such mobility im pairments may negativel y gait speed, falls, and fear of falling after a stroke. Stroke Stroke is the primary cause of disability and is the third leadin g cause of death for those over the age of 65 [1-4]. The American Heart Association reports stroke as a common neurological event occurring in 700,000 people annually; over 4 million are living with residual deficits [159]. O’Sullivan has defined a stroke, or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), as “an acute onset of neurol ogical dysfunction due to an abnormality in cerebral circulation with resu ltant signs and symptoms that correspond to involvement of

PAGE 32

19 focal areas of the brain” [160]. It has been cl assified as the most di sabling chronic disease with deleterious consequences for individuals, families, and society [5, 6]. Because age is a known risk factor for st roke, stroke incidence is expected to increase as the population ages. Stroke preval ence is expected to increases as stroke survival rates continue to increase [161, 162] The majority of stroke survivors will be discharged from the acute care setting and will return home with mild or moderate physical, cognitive, or emotional deficits [ 78]. For example, in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 72% of all stroke survi vors were discharged home into the community in 1999 [163]. Gait Velocity After Stroke Mobility impairment, such as decreased ga it velocity has been related to stroke related outcomes. Perry and colleagues assess ed the relationship between gait speed and mobility in participants 3 months post-st roke [9]. Six ambulation categories were developed, each was related to post-stroke mobility and ambulation in and out of the home (borrowed from Hoffer et al. who utili zed a four step walking handicap scale for children [164]). See Table 2-2 fo r the six ambulation categories. Perry et al. used five clinical measures to place post-stroke par ticipants into one of the six categories. The measures included: a walking ability questionnaire, stride characteristics including gait speed, upright motor control testing, and proprioception. Many analyses were completed, and the diffe rence in gait velocity demonstrated the greatest statistical significance between cat egories. Discriminate analyses were completed and identified gait velocity as the only clinical measure to significantly predict placement into the categories. Those consid ered as physiological walkers had a mean

PAGE 33

20 velocity of 0.1 .03 m/s compared to community walkers with a gait velocity of 0.8 0.18 m/s. Table 2-2. Six ambulation categories Ambulation level Ambulation ability Physiological walker Walks only for exercise or in therapy Limited household walker Requires assist for some walking activities, does walk during some home activities Unlimited household walker Able to walk for all household activities, has difficulty with stairs and uneven terrain, not able to enter and leave the house independently Most-limited community walker Able to enter and leave their home independently, is able to ascend and descend curbs, able to manage stairs but with assistance, independent in at least one community activity, but needs assistance with others Least-limited community walker Independent in stairs, all m oderate community activities, and in local stores and uncrowded shopping centers Community walker Independent in all hom e and community activities, can walk with crowds and on uneven terrain, and able to be independent in shopping centers The classification system was condensed to de pict three distinct gait velocity based classifications (see Table 2-3). This was necessa ry due to the similarities in gait speed between the household walkers. A walking sp eed of less than 0.4 m/s was determined equivalent to severe gait impairments and the household ambulation category. Limited community ambulation equals moderate gait impairments and speeds between 0.4 m/s and 0.8 m/s. Those in the community ambulation category walk over 0.8 m/s and are considered to have mild or limited post-str oke gait impairment. The normal healthy older population has been documented to walk at a gait velocity of 1.33 m/s [165]. Table 2-3. Gait Speed Classification Speed, m/s Impairment Ambulation Ability < 0.4 Severe Household ambulation 0.4-0.8 Moderate Limited Community Ambulation > 0.8 Mild Community Ambulation 1.33 None Normal, Healthy Elderly Population

PAGE 34

21 Lord and colleagues extended this work and evaluated the relationships between post-stroke gait speed and community am bulation [10]. Community ambulation was defined as “locomotion outdoors to encomp ass activities such as visits to the supermarket, shopping malls, and back; social outings; vacations; and pursuit of leisure activities”. All 130 post-stroke participants lived at home, 115 pa rticipants received physical therapy for mobility impairments and 15 did not require therapy. Mobility outcome measures assessed gait velocity, indoor and outdoor walki ng ability, functional mobility, and gait endurance. An additional self-report questionnaire assessed community ambulation according to unsupervised mobility. Part icipants were placed into one of four ambulation categories (see Table 2-4.), 1) not ambulating outside of the home, 2) ambulating as far as the letterbox, 3) ambula ting within the immediate environment, 4) ambulating in a shopping center and/ or other places of interest. Those not requiring physical therapy poststroke demonstrated the fastest gait velocity. Gait speed was within normal limits for this group and significantly higher than the overall mean, 1.36 m/s compared to .94 m/s. Gait speed differed between the four categories and increased as community ambula tion increased (Table 2-4). The self-report questionnaire indicated 14.6% of the part icipants were unable to leave their home unsupervised, 16.9% were able to walk to th e letterbox, 7.6% were limited to ambulating in their immediate environment, and 60.7% were able to ambulate within a shopping center and/or other place of interest. The aut hors concluded gait velocity was important to community ambulation and demonstrated that nearly one third of the sample was not able to ambulate independently within the community after a stroke.

PAGE 35

22 The relationship between gait speed a nd mobility has been supported in the literature. However the relationship between ch anges in post-stroke gait velocity and the ability to perform ADLs, IADLs, and social participation has never been explored. Table 2-4. Community ambulation Group Community Ambulation Leve l % of Sample Speed (m/s) 1 Unable to leave home 14.6% 0.515 m/s 2 Able to walk to letter box 16.9% 0.66 m/s 3 Limited to immediate environment 7.6% 0.82 m/s 4 Ambulate in shopping center 60.7% 1.14 m/s Falls After Stroke Falls are considered the most common medi cal complication afte r stroke [166]. Fall rates increase significantly post-stroke due to motor and sensory impairments and residual functional, cognitive, and emotional de ficits. These deficits are often related to mobility impairments and losse s in ADLs, IADLs, social participation, and overall quality of life. Falls may contribute to pos t-stroke residual impairments and further decreased abilities to complete ADLs and IADLs. Researchers have shown 22-39% of the acute stroke population falling before hospital discharge [166-168]. Thos e who fall while in the hospita l are twice as likely to fall after discharge. Existing research indicates falls remain an issue at discharge [78, 79] and still at 10 years post-str oke [82, 169]. Forster and Young examined falls incidence and consequence and reported 73% of the part icipants fell in the first six-months poststroke [79]. Importantly, only 21% of those who fell during the study had fallen prior to their stroke. The “fallers”, t hose with two or more falls, wa lked with a slower gait speed, were engaged in less social activity, and were more likely to be depressed.

PAGE 36

23 Stroke as a risk factor for falls Stroke is one of the most commonly cited ri sk factor for falls [82]. Hyndman et al. determined stroke as a risk factor for falls in a cross-sectional, observational study [170]. Half of the 41 community dwelling stroke su rvivors sustained a post-stroke fall and 10 had fallen more than once. Additional risk factors for those deemed “repeated fallers” included: post-stroke mobility deficits, upper extremity ability, and declines in ADLs and IADLs. Byers and colleagues studied acute st roke survivors and concluded post-stroke fall risk factors included a history of falls, impaired decision making ability, restlessness, generalized weakness, and abnormal hematocrit levels [81]. Jorgensen et al. determined the risk of falling was at leas t twice as high for those post-st roke in a case-control study [82]. Forster and Young found those post-stroke who fell in the hospital were twice as likely to fall after being discharged home [79]. Yates and colleagues indicated that those post-stroke are at increased risk for falling [78]. They investigated the effect of accumulated impairments on the risk of falling in community-dwelling stroke survivors. Of 280 participants, 51% sustained a fall between 1 and 6 months post-stroke. Accu mulated post-stroke impairments were characterized as motor, motor and sensory, or motor and sensory and visual. Fall rates for those with accumulated deficits were compared to those without any of the impairments. Results from a multiple logistic regression indi cated that the risk of falling increased with motor impairment and motor and sensory impairments. Interestingly, those with motor and sensory and visual impairments had decrea sed falls risk. This was most likely due to increased severity of the stroke, decreased balance, and therefore overall decreased mobility. The authors concluded that th e community-dwelling post-stroke population demonstrate a higher risk of falling.

PAGE 37

24 Post-stroke hip fractures Those post-stroke are at risk for both falls and the development of osteoporosis of the hemiparietic limb, consequently, increasi ng risk for hip fractures [58]. Ramnemark and colleagues observed hip fr acture incidence in 1139 post-st roke individuals [171]. One hundred and twenty participants sustained 154 fractures, 84% of all fractures were secondary to an accidental fall. Hip fractur es accounted for 70 (45%) of all recorded fractures and most affected the paretic side A four-fold increase of hip fracture was demonstrated in this post-stroke population. Ramnemark, et al. completed an additi onal study examining those sustaining a femoral neck fracture [172]. Short-term outcomes and mortality were compared for those with and without a history of stroke. In tota l, 27.4% participants ha d sustained a stroke prior to the hip fracture. A dditionally, the majority of hi p fractures occurred to the hemiparietic limb and survival rates were reduced for these patients. Fear of Falling After Stroke Post-stroke balance confidence Currently, there is little research regarding the prevalence of fear of falling development in the post-stroke population. At this time, the only work related to poststroke fear of falling has been completed to validate fear of falling assessments for the post-stroke population [173-175]. The researchers have indicated that those who have sustained a stroke are likely to exhibit lowe r falls confidence while performing activities, thus demonstrated increased fear of falling. Decreased falls confidence, or falls effi cacy, is based on Bandura’s theory of selfefficacy [176]. Those with low self-efficacy for a particular activ ity will tend to avoid that activity. In contrast, those with high se lf-efficacy will initia te the activity with

PAGE 38

25 enhanced confidence. The self-efficacy theory suggests a reciprocal relationship between efficacy and function; efficacy may influen ce function, but the ability to complete functional activities also infl uences efficacy. Fear of falli ng assessments are often based on self-efficacy and assess whether a person feel s confident in their ability to complete activities with out sustaining a fall [112, 147, 174]. Post-stroke fear of falling assessments Hellstrm and Lindmark completed a test-r etest reliability study of the expanded Falls Efficacy Scale (Swedish Version) (F ES(S)) and compared group differences in scores on the assessment [173]. The FES was developed by Tinetti et al. and measures self-perceived fear of falli ng during the performance of 10 common activities [112]. The FES(S) includes an additional three items, getting in and out of bed, grooming, and toileting. These three items were added due to the reduced independence often sustained by the post-stroke population. Thir ty post-stroke participants were included, overall-testretest-reliability was high and the FES(S) was indicated as a reliable assessment of falls efficacy in the post-stroke population. Hellstrm and colleagues completed additional reliability assessments to determine the ability of the of the FES(S) to assess clinically meaningful changes over time in the poststroke population [174]. The changes as measured by the FES were compared to changes evident using the Berg Balance Scale and the Fugl-Meyer balance and motor function subscale. The assessments were completed at admission and discharge from rehabilitation and 10 months later. The analyses of responsiveness determined indi viduals post-stroke demonstrated decreased fall related self-efficacy compared to elde rly participants in other fall studies. A very recent study examined the reliabili ty and validity of th e Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale for those pos t-stroke [175]. The ABC is a previously

PAGE 39

26 validated and reliable measure of balance confidence that measures confidence in performing various tasks without falli ng [150, 177, 178]. All pa rticipants were community dwelling ambulatory older adults who had sustained a stroke at least one year prior to the study. Significant correlation existed between the ABC and gait speed and balance assessments (Berg Balance). The aut hors concluded the ABC reliable and valid for the post-stroke population. Post-stroke fear of falling While there is profuse research related to fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly, there is a paucity of information spec ific to the development of fear of falling after stroke. It can be construed that as fall rates increase [79] and mobility decreases after stroke, an increase of f ear of falling will be demonstr ated. Motor function, balance, mobility, emotional well-being, and attention may all be diminished following a stroke. All may influence falls incidence and the development of fear of falling [78, 79]. Increased fear of falling may too be related to a realization of physical and cognitive declines developed post-stroke. Fear of falling has been demonstrated as bot h a risk factor for fa lls and as a serious consequence resulting from falls [96, 112, 113]. With post-stroke falls incidence as high as 73% [79], it is likely that th e rate of fear of fa lling is equally exacerbated after a stroke. However, there is little evidence-based literature to support this relationship. Activity and Participation Restriction of Activi ty and Participation Restriction of activity has been related to the development of disability in the elderly population. Health and functional st atus, health care u tilization, decreased independence, increased social isolation, and overall quality of life and life satisfaction

PAGE 40

27 are all impacted by activity curtailment [179, 180]. It is related to decreased independence and increases in caregiver burden. Restriction of activity has been used as an outcome measure in geriatric intervention trials attempting to reduce disability [181183]. Thus activity restriction is an important considerati on for the community dwelling post-stroke population. Gill et al. attempted to identify health and non-health related problems associated with activity restriction [ 179]. Within the 15-month study period, 76.6% of the elderly sample restricted activity during at leas t one month and 39.3% for two consecutive months. Health care utilizati on was elevated during months of activity restriction. Gill and colleagues also evaluated the relationship between restricted activity and disability development [180]. The authors concluded th at activity restriction was significantly related to disability development for the community dwelli ng older population. Guralnik et al. explored mobility disabil ity and found that limitations in mobility can lead to decreased performance of ADLs [17]. Such limitations in ADLs and IADLs have been related to disabili ty and increased health care utilization. It therefore is essential to explore the impact of mobility, su ch as gait speed, falls, and fear of falling, on activity and participation. Gait Speed, Activity, and Participation Gait speed has been associated with community mobility [9, 10]. Those with declines in gait speed may demonstrate de creases in activity and participation and experience decreased opportuni ties to return to societal and personal roles [184]. Consequently, perceived quality of life and life satisfaction are at risk. Potter and colleagues completed a study to determine a relationship between gait speed and ADL performance in the elderly popul ation [184]. All participants were older

PAGE 41

28 than 65 and independently mobile. Particip ants were all admitted to inpatient or outpatient care, but not hospita lized due to a specific dia gnosis. All participants had nonsurgical hospitalizations, were medica lly stable, and were appropriate for rehabilitation. Participants with differing diagnoses and a range of functional abilities were eligible for inclusion, therefore, those w ith acute infectious illn esses, strokes, acute relapses of chronic neurological disease (Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), falls, and cardiovascular pathologies were included. Gait speed, ADLs, and me ntal status were assessed. Gait speed ranged from 0.05 m/s to greater than 0.55 m/s and was placed into one of six categories. The authors concluded that an associa tion between decrease d gait speed and ADL ability levels was evident. Those with a ga it speed of less than 0.25 m/s were more likely dependent in one or more ADL; only 36% of those with gait speed less than 0.25 m/s were considered independent in all ADL f unctioning. In contrast, 72.1% of those with gait speed between 0.35 m/s and 0.55 m/ s were independent in all ADLs. Studenski et al. completed a prospective cohort study to determine whether gait speed could be used as a “clinical vital si gn” in a community dw elling elderly population [41]. Outcome measures included demogra phics, health and functional status, and physical performance. Those with a gait speed of less than 0.6 m/s were categorized as slow walkers and demonstrated a 69% inci dence of new personal care difficulty. Comparatively, 28% of those w ith a gait speed of 0.6 to 1.0 m/ s and 12% with gait speed greater than 1.0 m/s demonstrated new care needs. The researcher s concluded that a slowing of gait speed has negative effects on overall mobility and the ability to complete ADLs and IADLs.

PAGE 42

29 Falls, Activity, and Participation Restriction of mobility and declines in ability to complete ADLs and IADLs are severe consequences associated with falls [56, 138, 170]. All are ne gatively related to decreased independence and quali ty of life. Stel and coll eagues examined fall related declines in functional status and physical activity [185]. F unctional status was measured with stair climbing, dressing, standing from a chair, cutting toenails, walking outside and transportation. Physical activ ity changes were measured with walking, bicycling, gardening, sport activities, and light and heavy household activ ities. Post-fall declines in functional status were reporte d by 35.3% of their sample a nd 15.2% reported declines in physical activity. Vellas et al determined that those who fell in a prospective study demonstrated restricted activity and decr eased independence at 6 months [138]. Tinetti and Williams completed a study to determine the impact of falls and fall related injuries on ADLs, IADLs, social ac tivity, and advanced physical activities in a community dwelling elderly population [141]. At one and three years, falling was associated with declines in ADLs, IADLs, and social participation. Those with multiple falls experienced greater declines in activity and participation and those with injurious falls also demonstrated declin es in advanced physical activ ity. An association between declines in activity and falls incidence and/or severity of injury was demonstrated, thus indicating a “dose response” relationship between falls and functional losses. Yardley and Smith examined the most co mmonly held beliefs regarding falls and activity curtailment [ 186]. The Consequence s of Falling (CoF) Scale was developed and validated by the authors. It asse ssed types of fear related to fa lls, such as fear of physical injury, fear of long-term functional incapacit y, fear of subjective anxiety, and fear of social discomfort. Demographics, mobility leve l, use of a walking aide, falls history and

PAGE 43

30 incidence, falls related safety, and fear of falling were also assesse d. Nearly half of the participations reported a fall in the previous year. Long term functional disability and loss of independence were cited as the most comm on fears. Social discomfort and a loss of confidence and personal identity were al so indicated as common fears. Activity restriction was correlated with anticipate d damage to personal identity and loss of independence. Social participation was a voided to decrease the risk of social embarrassment secondary to a fall. The CoF was correlated to activity avoidance, but importantly, it also predicted increased avoi dance of activity performance at follow up. Fear of Falling, Activity, and Participation Activity restriction has been demonstrated in 20% to 55% of those reporting fear of falling [46, 93, 148, 187]. Activity limitations and decreased social pa rticipation may be due to fear of falling or due to the injury or pain experienced from a previous fall [46, 48, 188]. Overall decreased independenc e, quality of life, and life satisfaction are at risk due to fear of falling related change s in activity and participation. Fear of falling has been related to dec lined performance of ADLs and IADLs, social participation, and community integration [43, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152, 189-192]. Additionally fear of falling is related to decreased mobility, stair climbing, vision, general health, depressed mood, decrea sed social and physical activ ities, and poor life satisfaction [10, 56, 113, 140, 147, 186]. Fear of falling is associ ated with deteriorated health status [143, 144, 148, 149, 152] and therefore negativel y influences physical and functional well-being [193]. All lead to further functiona l declines, decreased quality of life, and increased caregiver burden [113]. Li et al. summarized a relationship regardi ng fear of falling and concluded that fear negatively influences falls related self-efficacy [194]. This subsequently impacts balance,

PAGE 44

31 physical ability, and mobility impairments. Th is cycle accelerates declines of physical health, activity, and participati on; possibly increasing the inci dence of falls. Delbaere et al. emphasized the “vicious cycle” of frailty regarding fear related avoidance of activity. They concluded an association between fear of falling with new physical declines such as increased frailty, decreased postural control, and decreased muscle strength, and an overall increase of falls risk, thus le ading to increased fear of falling [114]. The literature regarding the impact of fear of falling on activity and participation is profuse. It has been identified, reviewed, a nd synthesized into an evidenced based table found in Appendix a. It is evident from this review of the literature that those with developed fear of falling are at great risk for decreased performance in ADLs, IADLs, and social participation, and are therefore at signifi cant risk for declines in quality of life and life satisfaction. Caregivers Stroke and Caregiving As demonstrated in the conceptual mode l, post-stroke mobility disability may negatively impact activity, participation, a nd depression, thereby increasing dependence and possibly increasing caregi ver depression and burden. A re view of the literature reveals abundant caregiving research, however, there is a paucity of research specifically related to caregiving after a stroke or specifically rega rding the burden and stress experienced by informal caregivers [4]. Those participating in post-stroke care giving may provide assistance in many life domains including mobility, self-care, and communication. However, stroke related complications such as cognitive impairment depression, and personality changes may require increased provision of caregiving a nd assistance [4, 195]. A post-stroke reduction

PAGE 45

32 in ADL and IADL performance frequently results in reduced levels of functional independence and subsequently increases the necessity of additional care in the home. Often, those post-stroke are dependent on car egivers to maintain community living and stave off facility or institution admission. Th e review of the literature indicated more research is necessary, specifica lly in the areas of caregiver physical health, ethnicity, and caregiver interventions. Mobility Disability and Caregiving Researchers have demonstrated relations hips between mobility disability and limitations in activity and participation and consequential losses of independence, and increased need for care, health utilizati on, and admission into care facilities [14, 15, 2024]. Specifically, caregiving after falls has been explored. The resul ting complications of a fall can be severe and include death, fractures, and further losses of independence. It is therefore expected that falls are negativ ely associated with caregiver burden and depression. Forster and Young demonstrated ne gative effects for the caregiver when postfall declines in ADL performance were evid ent [79]. The caregivers taking care of “fallers” were more stressed, a nd one-third of all caregivers st ated that concern for a fall limited their own social activity. Stolze et al also indicated incr eased burden for those caring for the post-fall populat ion [154]. Howland and colleagues also demonstrated a relationship between caregiver support and fear of falling related activity curtailment [148]. There has been no research completed speci fically examining caregiving after fear of falling development or changes in gait sp eed. However it is expected that caregiving needs will increase due to mobility related declines in performance of activities.

PAGE 46

33 Caregiver Depression Researchers have indicated high levels of depression associated with stroke survivor caregivers compared to non-caregiver s [4]. The prevalence of depression in the caregiving population ranges from 34% to as high as 52% [196-199]. Spousal and female caregivers have demonstrated increased de pression which tends to persist over long periods of time [200]. A Japanese study demonstrated depression in 52% of 100 stroke caregivers, this was double the depression rate for the contro l group (23%) [201]. Hartke and King found that depressed caregivers were more likely to have difficulty with caregiving, report more problems with the care recipient, experience fi nancial concerns, and re port a decrease in social involvement [202]. Researchers ha ve found a relationship between increased stroke caregiver depression and increased stroke severity [203, 204]. Kotila et al compared the incidence and severity of depre ssion at 3 and 12 mont hs post-stroke [205]. Both stroke survivors and their caregivers de monstrated increased levels of depression which were maintained at the one-year follow up. Caregiver Burden Morimoto and colleagues found that the strongest predicto r of declining quality of life for stroke caregivers was a high level of caregiver burde n [201]. Burden is caused by feelings of large responsibilit y, uncertainty about the care ne eds of the stroke survivor, decreased social interacti on, and being the sole provide r of care [206]. Bugge and colleagues (1999) studied careg ivers at 1, 3, and 6 months post-stroke. The amount of time spent helping a patient, the amount of time spent with the patient, and the caregiver’s health were determined as the mo st influential factors of caregiver strain

PAGE 47

34 [207]. Caregivers providing greater levels of care (e.g. toileting, ba thing) experienced greater emotional distress and greate r caregiver burden [208, 209]. Summary of the Literature Review This review of literature demonstrates that post-stroke motor, sensory, and cognitive impairments influence mobility. Fa lls, fear of falling, and gait speed are all impacted aspects of post-stroke mobility and al l may be related to restriction of activity and participation. Activity curtailment has been related to decreases in quality of life and life satisfaction. There is no research specific to the development of fear of falling post-stroke. This research was completed as an initial explor ation of fear of falli ng in the post-stroke population. Fear of falling was characterized for the post-stroke population, and activity restriction was explored. Si milarly, the relationship betw een post-stroke gait speed changes and its impact on activity and partic ipation were evaluated. This research will provide a foundation for exploring the impact of post-stroke mobility on activity and participation.

PAGE 48

35 CHAPTER 3 THE IMPACT OF POST-STROKE GAIT VELOCITY CHANGES ON ACTIVITY AND PARTICIATION Introduction The American Heart Association reports that 700,000 people sustain a stroke annually [159]; it is the primary cause of adu lt disability [2-4]. Stroke related deficits include motor, sensory, and cognitive impair ments that negatively influence mobility. Losses in mobility are often reflected by dec lines in gait velocity [40, 210]. Mobility impairments and changes in gait velocity are related to losses of independence and decreased ability to reengage in the community [9]. Gait speed is an important clinical and re search outcome measure. It is a common measure of mobility and a reliable, valid, and sensitive measure of post-stroke locomotor recovery [9, 39]. It discriminate s the effects of stroke and is related to the potential for rehabilitation recovery [40]. Ga it velocity is a predictor of health status and health care utilization in the elderly [41] It is associated with perf ormance of activities of daily living (ADLs) and community ambulation [9, 10, 184]. Potter et al. determined a relationship be tween gait speed and ADL performance in the community dwelling elderly [184]. Par ticipants with multi ple diagnoses were included and those with decr eased gait speed demonstrated decreased independence. A gait speed less than 0.25 meters per second (m/s) was associat ed with dependence in one or more ADL; only 36% of those with gait speed less than 0.25 m/ s were considered

PAGE 49

36 independent in all ADLs. In contrast, 72.1% of those with gait speed between 0.35 m/s and 0.55 m/s were independent in all ADLs. Perry et al. examined the association between post-stroke gait velocity and ambulation [9]. The authors developed an am bulation classification related to necessary gait speed for home and community ambulation. Household ambulation was equal to severe gait impairment and velocity less than 0.4 m/s. Limited community ambulation was equivalent to moderate gait impairme nts and walking between 0.4 m/s and 0.8 m/s. Community ambulation indicated mild impairment and speed over 0.8 m/s. Increases in gait velocity were rela ted to improved home and community ambulation. The relationship between post-stroke ga it speed and community ambulation was further explored by Lord and colleagues [10] Participants include d 115 individuals who received physical therapy for mobility impairments and 15 not requiring such therapy. Mobility outcome measures assessed gait sp eed, indoor and outdoor walking ability, and gait endurance. An additional self-report que stionnaire assessed unsupervised mobility. Participants were categorized by community am bulation levels as seen in Table 3-1. Gait velocity differed between the categories and increased from 0.52 m/s for those unable to leave home to 1.14 m/s for those able to ambul ate in a shopping center. One third of the sample was not able to ambulate independent ly within the community after a stroke. Table 3-1. Community ambulation and gait speed Group Community Ambulation Level % of Sample Speed (m/s) 1 Unable to leave home 14.6% 0.52 2 Able to walk to letter box 16.9% 0.66 3 Limited to immediate environment 7.6% 0.82 4 Ambulate in shopping center 60.7% 1.14 In summary, the relationships between gait speed and ADL performance in the community dwelling elderly and between gait speed and post-stroke ambulation are well

PAGE 50

37 established [9, 10, 184]. However, it is not know n whether a change in post-stroke gait velocity is “clinically meani ngful”, as reflected by improve d functional abilities such as activity and participation. A clinically meani ngful change is important to determine as it is related to patient-valued benefits. Barrett et al. disc ussed the need to observe a clinically “important difference” by merg ing patient-oriented and evidence-based frameworks together [7]. Such clinical meaningfulness can be seen by examining the sufficiently important difference (SID), the smallest amount of patient-valued benefit required from an intervention to justify associat ed costs, risks, and other harms. Lord and Rochester recently stated a need for a con ceptual framework related to post-stroke mobility and that there is “no guarantee that increases in gait velocity will denote a meaningful improvement in performance” [ 211]. The objective of this study was to determine whether a change in gait speed over three months was clinically meaningful as reflected by the impact on ADLs (including mobility), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and social part icipation after stroke. Methods Design Data in this study are derived from a pa rent study; a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, clinical interventi on trial [8]. The trial was completed to determine the effects of a therapist-supervis ed 12-14 week home-b ased, structured, and progressive exercise intervention on particip ants post-stroke. The intervention focused on upper and lower-limb strength, balance, enduran ce, and increased use of the affected extremities. The intervention group was compar ed to a usual care group who received rehabilitation as prescribed by their physicia n and bi-weekly visits from research staff. Informed consent was received from all pa rticipants through methods approved by the

PAGE 51

38 Institutional Review Board of the univers ity and each participating facility. All participants were recruited from an ongoing st roke registry. This secondary analysis was approved by the University of Florida Health Science Center Institutional Review Board. This analysis did not examine differences between intervention and usual care groups. Rather we examined the differences in ADLs, IADLs, and social participation between those who did and did not successf ully advance to the next ambulation classification as portrayed by Perry et al. [9]. For example, the participants considered successful, transitioned from an initial gait ve locity of less than 0.4 m/s to 0.4 to 0.8 m/s or faster or they advanced from an initial gait velocity between 0.4 to 0.8 m/s to greater than 0.8 m/s. Gait velocity was measured at baseline and repeated at 3 months. Participants All participants were selected from one of 17 medical facilities, all of which were partaking in an ongoing Kansas C ity Stroke Registry. All thos e registered gave informed consent and permission to be screened for elig ibility for future research studies. Those eligible for the registry had a confirmed diagnos is of a stroke within 3-28 days, were over age 50, and lived within a 50-mile radius. Re gistry exclusion criteria included the following: subarachonoid hemorrhage, bei ng lethargic, obtunded, or comatose, uncontrolled blood pressure, hepatic or rena l failure, NYHA III/IV heart failure, known limited life expectancy, or pre-st roke disability in self care; or previously lived in a nursing home prior to the stroke. Those in the registry were eligible to be sc reened for this randomized clinical trial. Inclusion for the parent clinical trial included: (1) stroke w ithin 30-150 days, (2) ability to ambulate 25 feet independently, (3) mild to moderate stroke deficits defined by a FuglMeyer score of 29 to 90 for upper and lowe r extremities, an Orpington Prognostic Scale

PAGE 52

39 score of 2.0 to 5.2, and palpable wrist extensi on on the involved si de; and (4) Folstein Mini-Mental Status examination score greate r than 16. Exclusion cr iterion included: (1) serious cardiac conditions (hos pitalization for heart disease within 3 months, active angina, serious cardiac arrhythmias, hypertroph ic cardiomyopathy, severe aortic stenosis, pulmonary embolus, or infarction), (2) oxyge n dependence, (3) severe weight-bearing pain, (4) other serious organ system disease, and (5) life expectan cy of < 1 year. All participants signed an informed consent to partake in the tr ial and all had approval from a primary care physician [8]. Ninety-two individu als completed the clini cal trial, 44 in the intervention arm and 48 in the usual care arm. Specifically, only 64 of the 92 participants were included in this three-month analysis because those walking > 0.8 m/s at baseline were excluded. This report does not compar e the intervention to the usual care groups, but combines all participants walking < 0.8 m/ s at baseline to allow for examination of clinically meaningful change s in post-stroke gait speed. Outcome Measures The parent clinical trial included the Or pington Prognostic Scale to measures stroke severity [212]. Disability outcomes meas ures included the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [213], the Bart hel [214], the Lawton and Brody IADLs assessment [215], and gait speed thresholds for community am bulation [10]. Quality of life measures included subscales of the Stroke Impact Scal e [216] and the Medical Outcomes Study SF 36 [217]. Results for outcome measures are found elsewhere [8]. Gait speed, activity, and participation were the specifi c outcome measures used for this secondary analysis. Gait velocity Gait velocity was measured by the 10-Meter Walk, a valid and reliable measure for gait velocity assessment in the elderly pos t-stroke population [218]. The 10-Meter Walk

PAGE 53

40 consisted of two completed walks without rests in between and collected in meters/second. Specifically, the main outcome for this analysis was the proportion of participants who demonstrated “success” by transitioning from one ambulation classification to the next. Both baseline and final outcome m easures were placed into the ambulation classification previously devel oped by Perry et al.: < 0.4 = household ambulation 0.4 – 0.8 = limited community ambulation and > 0.8 = community ambulation [9]. Changes in gait velocity were considered as successful walking recovery when participants shifted from < 0.4 m/s to 0.4 – 0.8 m/s ( household to limited community ambulation ) or 0.4 – 0.8 m/s to > 0.8 m/s ( limited community to community ambulation ) [9]. A dichotomous variable of “success” or “fail” was utilized for the analysis. Activity and participation Activity and participation were assessed with the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), a comprehensive and psychometrically robust stroke-specific outcome measure [216, 219]. The SIS was developed from the perspectiv e of patients, caregivers, and health professionals with stroke expertise. It has been demonstrated to be reliable, valid, and sensitive to change related to stroke rec overy. There are eight domains and 59 items in version 3.0, specifically, the SI S ADL/IADL, mobility, partic ipation, and SIS-16 physical functioning components were used for this anal ysis [220]. Items such as food preparation, bathing, toileting, shopping, and household ta sks were assessed with the ADL/IADL component. Mobility was assessed with item s regarding loss of balance, transferring, walking, and stair climbing. Pa rticipation items included wo rk, social activities, quiet recreation, family and friend roles, religious and spiritual activities, and helping others.

PAGE 54

41 The SIS-16 is a validated short instrument used to assess physical functioning with ADL and mobility items [221]. Statistical Analysis All analyses were completed using SAS statistical software. Simple descriptive statistics were used to describe demographi cs and outcomes scores for the entire sample. Additional descriptive data de lineated by success or failure of increasing to the next walking classification was examined. Base line characteristics of the 64 people who completed the study with initial gait speed of < 0.8 m/s included demographics, stroke characteristics, and baseline outcome meas ures. T-tests were utilized to determine significant differences in activity and participation (SIS) between those who succeeded and who failed to increase to the next walking classification at three months post-stroke. Results Baseline demographics for the 64 particip ants are presented in Table 3-2. The average age of the sample was 71.03 (10.64). Th ose successful in incr easing to the next ambulation classification were significantly younger than those w ho failed (p = .0023). The entire sample included 54.69% ma les and 78.13% were white. All other demographic characteristics and data related to participation and retention of participants specific to the Kansas City Stroke Re gistry are reported elsewhere [8]. Mean baseline gait speed was 0.50 (0.16) m/ s for the entire sample, 0.51 (0.17) m/s for those who succeeded and 0.49 (0.16) m/s for those who failed to increase to the next ambulation classification (p = 0.689). At thre e-months, gait speed for the entire group was 0.68 (0.24) m/s. As anticipated, a significa nt difference was detected for three month gait velocity scores between those who succeeded (0.82 (0.25) m/s) and failed (0.56 (0.16) m/s) to proceed to the next ambulation classification (p < 0.0001).

PAGE 55

42 Table 3-2. Baseline characteristics for partic ipations with initia l gait speed < 0.8 m/s (success = advancing to a highe r ambulation classification) All Success Fail p value Demographics Sample Size 64 29 35 Age, Year 71.0 (10.64) 66.72 (9.29) 74.6 (10.48) 0.0023 Male Sex, n (%) 35 (55%) 16 (46%) 19 (54%) 0.9434 Race (White), n (%) 50 (78%) 22 (44%) 28 (56%) 0.6902 Stroke Characteristics Orpington Prognostic Score 3.51 (0.84) 3.67 (0.89) 3.38 (0.78) 0.176 NIH Stroke Score 6.62 (3.33) 6.76 (3.46) 6.50 (3.27) 0.763 Right Hemisphere (%) 34 (53%) 15 (44%) 19 (56%) Left Hemisphere (%) 24 (38%) 9 (38%) 15 (63%) Brain Stem/Other (%) 4 (9%) 3 (83%) 1 (17%) 0.1530 Stroke Type, Ischemic (%) 57 (89%) 25 (44%) 32 (56%) 0.6920 Baseline Measures Barthel Index 40.16 (20.1) 40.17 (19.5) 40.16 (21) 0.998 Folstein MMSE 26.45 (4.23) 26.31 (3.72) 26.57 (4.67) 0.804 Geriatric Depression Scale 4.61 (3.29) 4.59 (3.61) 4.63 (3.06) 0.960 10 Meter-Walk, m/s at Baseline 0.50 (0.16) 0.51 (0.17) 0.49 (0.16) 0.689 Values are mean (SD) when appropriate The proportion of participants who succeed ed or failed to transition from one ambulation classification to the next is doc umented in Table 3-3. The highest proportion of participants who transitione d to the next classification had initial gait speed of less than 0.4 m/s; 63% of the household ambulators increased to the limited community ambulator classification. In contrast, only 38% of those initially considered a limited community ambulator (0.4 – 0.8 m/s) advanced to the community ambulation classification. In all, 45% of the sample was successful and 55% failed to increase to the next ambulation classifica tion at three months. Three-month outcomes associated with gait velocity are presented for the entire sample in Table 3-4. Age was significantly di fferent between those who were successful and who failed to transition to the next ambulation classification. Therefore age was controlled for at the < 0.100 leve l, as it is common that adju stment variables are retained

PAGE 56

43 in the model at a lower significance level than that of the main factors. Equal variance was established for all values except fo r the SIS-16 measure for the entire group. Therefore t-tests were deemed appropriate and equal (pooled) p-values were used except for the SIS-16 with the Satteerthwaite unequa l variance p-value us ed. After controlling for age, there were significant differences in SIS measured mobility and participation between those who succeeded and failed to a dvance to the next am bulation classification (p < 0.05). SIS ADL/IADL approached significa nce at 0.0524. When controlling for age and stratifying by baseline gait speed, those wi th initial gait velocity of < 0.4 m/s demonstrated significant diffe rences in SIS ADL/IADL, mobi lity, social participation, and SIS-16 measures between thos e who succeeded and failed (p < 0.05) (Table 3-5). In contrast, when age was controlled for and initial gait speed was between 0.4 m/s and 0.8 m/s, only participation scores were signifi cantly different between those who succeeded and those who failed to progress to th e next ambulation classification. Table 3-3. Proportions of success/fail for tran sitioning to next ambulation classification between baseline and 3 months All Initial Gait Velocity in m/s Success Fail < 0.4 (Household) 12 (63%) 7 (37%) 0.4–0.8 (Limited Community) 17 (38%) 28 (62%) Total n (%) Total 29 (45%) 35 (55%) Table 3-4. Three month outcomes for entire sample Success Failure p value p value^ Sample Size 29 35 SIS ADL/IADL 77.8 (14.1) 69.6 (19.0) 0.0589 N/A SIS Mobility 77.6 (2.2) 65.5 (16.1) 0.0015 0.0359^ SIS Participation 68.2 (8.6) 52.9 (20.6) 0.0031 N/A SIS – 16 81.3 (11.2) 71.6 (16.5) 0.0076 0.0844^ ^p-value after adjusting for age when age is significantly differe nt at the < 0.100 level

PAGE 57

44 Table 3-5. Three month outcomes stratified by gait speed Success Failure p value p value^ < 0.4 m/s at Baseline Sample Size 12 7 SIS ADL/IADL 75.5 (15.2) 51.4 (12.5) .0026 N/A SIS Mobility 77.1 (11.4) 50.5 (10.9 ) <.0001 N/A SIS Participation 66.1 (15.2) 42.9 (19.6) .0100 N/A SIS – 16 67.2 (12.5) 46.7 (9.8) <.0001 N/A 0.4 – 0.8 m/s at Baseline Sample Size 17 28 SIS ADL/IADL 79.6 (13.5) 74.2 (17.7) .2891 N/A SIS Mobility 77.9 (13.1) 69.3 (14.9 ) 0.0565 .2215^ SIS Participation 69.7 (21.0) 55.5 (20.5) .0308 N/A SIS – 16 81.8 (12.7) 67.6 (13.7) .1756 .0718^ ^p-value after adjusting for age when age is significantly differe nt at the < 0.100 level Discussion Gait speed is a valid and reliable assessm ent used frequently in elderly and poststroke research [9, 39, 40]. In the hopes of determining what is a clinically meaningful change in gait speed, researchers have attemp ted to determine relationships between gait speed and functional abilities [9, 10, 184]. Perry et al. and Lord et al. have previously examined gait velocity classi fications dependent on home and community ambulation in the post-stroke population [9, 10]. Potter and colleagues de monstrated a relationship between ADL performance and gait speed in an elderly population with various diagnoses [184]. This secondary analysis is the first study to examine the association between actual changes in post-stroke gait velocity and the reciprocal impact on performance of ADLs and IADLs and social participation as m easured by the SIS. Our results validate ambulation classification in both research and clinical rehabil itation settings, and specifically validates the prior classification developed by Perry et al. [9]. Additionally, our results show that a clini cally meaningful change in gait speed, as represented by an

PAGE 58

45 increase to the next ambulati on classification, was significantly associated with increased activity and participation scori ng, particularly for those with the slowest baseline gait velocity. Those who successfully transitioned to th e next ambulation cl assification were significantly younger then those who did not (p = 0.0023). When age was controlled for, those with baseline gait speeds of < 0.4 m/s demonstrated the greate st gains in activity and participation. Among those who walked less than 0.4 m/s, there were significant differences in SIS ADL/IADL, mobility, part icipation, and SIS-16 scores found between those who were successful and who faile d to advance to th e next ambulation classification. This may be attributable to th e fact that those with greater deficits had more opportunity for improvement and there we re less ceiling effects in the measures. After age was controlled for in the less impaired walking group, there was significant difference in participation, betw een those who did and did not successfully progress to the next classifi cation. SIS participation items include higher level home and community activities. Increased gait veloci ty was clearly attributable to increased abilities to complete higher level tasks at home and in the community. A significant difference in age contributed to mobility and SIS-16 scores. After controlling for age, the SIS-16 approached significance, but likely wa s related to the assessment of higher level ADLs and mobility. The lack of other significant findings is probably due to the participants’ high degree of independence at ba seline and subsequent ceiling effects of the measures. Stratifying by gait speed decreased th e sample size, possibly decreasing the detected differences between groups. Other pos t-stroke changes may have also impacted

PAGE 59

46 ability to complete ADLs, IADLs, mobility, and social participat ion. The severity of residual deficits is an additional component of post-stroke gait speed and activity and participation; side of the lesion, medical complications, rehabilitation days, assistive devices, caregiving, and overall support all pl ay a role in performance of post-stroke ADLs (including mobility) and IADLs and social participation. Research competed by Potter et al. may pr ovide some rationale for our specific findings [184]. The authors noted that some pa rticipants demonstrated greater gait speed but not greater ADL performance. They concl uded that some had difficulties specific to upper extremity ADL and IADL activities that were not reliant on gait. Therefore no relationship between ADLs and gait speed ex isted. Additionally, all of their study participants walking between 0.35 m/s and 0.5 5 m/s were independent in all ADLs. Our average baseline gait velocity was 0.50 (0.16) m/s for the entire sample, therefore, independence in ADLs would be expected for our participants, particularly for those walking initially walking greater than 0.4 m/s. An important strength of th is study is that the included participants are derived from a large parent study of community livi ng stroke survivors. This is a clinically significant group because even though they have returned home, they still have limited ambulation and other stroke related deficits Additionally, the assessors were blinded regarding intervention or cont rol placement and all assessmen ts were standardized. There are also limitations. Duncan et al. reports study limitations related to the intervention and possible bias in self-report because the c ontrol group participants knew their treatment assignment [8]. In future studies, we will assess the impact of post-stroke gait speed changes using a continuous measure ra ther than ambulation classification.

PAGE 60

47 Clinically meaningful change s in gait speed are important in rehabilitation clinics and research. Rehabilitation goals often incl ude increases in gait speed and endurance. The results of this study indi cate a significant impact of ga it velocity on performance of ADLs, IADLs, mobility, social participati on, and SIS-16 scores making increased gait speed an appropriate goal. These results are ve ry relevant as they validate the ambulation classification previously portrayed by Perry et al. [9] and represent a clinically meaningful change in gait speed; encourag ing the use of ambula tion classification for goal setting as it is related to overall increases in activity and participation. We have demonstrated that a clinically meaningful change in gait speed is related to highly significant improvement in all domains, part icularly for social participation. Such clinically meaningful gait speed changes may have a profound impact on overall quality of life and life satisfaction as both have been negatively a ssociated to restriction of activity and partic ipation [179, 180].

PAGE 61

48 CHAPTER 4 FEAR OF FALLING AFTER STROKE Introduction Stroke is the primary cause of disability in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in the country for those ove r 65 [2-4]. The American Heart Association reports that stroke is a common neurological event occu rring in 700,000 people a year [159]. Those surviving a stroke are often left with sensory, cognitive, motor, and balance impairments which negatively influence m obility and other activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) [222-224]. Fall rates increase due to post-stroke mobility deficits [78] and are considered the most common medical complication after stroke [166] The annual 30% [49] incidenc e of falls in the community dwelling elderly population rises to 73% within the first six months post-stroke [79]. Those who fall post-stroke may be prone to developing fear of falling. The development of fear of falling, with the cascading consequences of further mobility disability and declines in activity and participation ma y be related to an overall decrease of independence and quality of life [56, 170]. There is currently an abundan ce of research regarding falls after stroke and fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly, bu t there is little specific to how people describe the experience of fear of falling after st roke or how fear of falling develops among this population. Fear of falling has been operationally defined for this study as “a developed and lasting concern about falling related to a loss of confidence in balance abilities and mobility and is often related to an avoidance of activities that he/she remains

PAGE 62

49 capable of performing” [113, 140-143]. The incide nce of fear of falling is still unclear with researchers reporting f ear of falling in the community dwelling elderly ranging from 29%-92% for those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% for those without a recent fall [46, 70, 113, 115, 144-152]. Fear of falling inci dence may rise after stroke due to increased fall rates and declines in physical ability and mobility. Fear of falling has been associated with declines in performance of ADLs and IADLs, decreased participation, and community integration [43, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152, 189-192]. It has also been related to declin es in mobility, stair climbing, vision, general health status, depression, and poor life satisfaction, [10, 56, 113, 140, 147, 186], all negatively influencing general well-being and life satisfaction [193]. In addition, 20% to 55% of those with fear of falling have reported activity restri ction [42, 43, 113, 114, 143, 148, 186, 187, 225-230]. Activity restriction has been independently related to increased health care utilization, social isolation, depres sion, and caregiver burden and decreases in health, functional status, and i ndependence; resulting in overall decline in quality of life and life satisfaction [10, 43, 56, 113, 140, 143, 147, 149, 151, 152, 179, 180, 186, 189]. Activity restrictions related to functional deficits, falls, and fear of falling may result in reduced levels of independence and increasing need for additional care in the home [4]. Such decreases in abilities may be associated with increased caregiv er burden, strain, and depression [4, 79, 154]. Informal caregivers of people who have fallen report decreased social activity, increased stress and increased burden [79, 154]. This study is a secondary an alysis of existing qualita tive and quantitative data obtained from a larger study [11] The objectives of this study were (1) characterize poststroke fear of falling as de scribed by participants during the first six months following

PAGE 63

50 discharge home; (2) explore th e relationships between fear of falling and performance of ADLs, IADLs, and depression; and (3) examin e the relationship between fear of falling and caregiver depression, burden, and coping. Methods Design This study used both qualitative and quantitat ive methods to evaluate fear of falling in a population of veterans discharged home post-stroke. Participants who discussed fear of falling were identified in the sample enroll ed in the larger study. Content analysis was used to identify descriptors that characte rize fear of falling across six months after discharge home post acute stroke. Patton desc ribes content analysis as the process of identification, coding, and categorization of the primary patterns in qualitative data [231]. Quantitative data were obtained from standardized outcome measures collected from stroke survivors and their caregi vers at one and six months. Sample All veterans and caregivers included in this study met the in clusion criteria to participate in the larger study. The larger study included a total of 132 participants, 42 (32%) of these participants were identified w ith fear of falling at one or six months and were included in the sub-study. The inclusion criteria for veterans to be involved in the larger study were: (1) member of one of three ethnic groups (Caucasian, African American, or Puerto Rican Hispanic), (2) disc harged directly home from an acute care unit following a stroke, (3) a Mi ni Mental Status Exam (MMS E) of 18 or higher and able to verbally communicate at discharge, (4) have a caregiver willing to participate, and (5) sign a consent form or have the consent form signed by a proxy. Inclusion criteria for the informal caregivers were: (1) family or frie nd who the stroke survivor identified as a

PAGE 64

51 primary caregiver, (2) able to communicate verb ally, (3) willing to participate and sign a consent form. Exclusion criteria for both ve terans and caregivers was the inability to communicate or unwillingness to participate. Inclusion crite ria for this sub study were: (1) male; (2) described some aspect of fear of falling during the interviews at one or six months after discharge home. Each partic ipant gave informed consent prior to participation in the larger study through methods approved by the University of Florida (UF) Health Science Center Intuitional Re view Board (IRB) and the Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Clinical Inve stigations (VA SCI). This secondary analysis was approved by the UF IRB and VA SCI as an exempt study usin g existing data. Data Collection Data for the larger study were obtained to develop stroke recove ry trajectories for stroke survivors and their ca regivers after discharge home following acute stroke for three ethnic groups: African Am erican, White, and Puerto Rican Hispanic. The larger study is a longitudinal multi-site cohort study that includes qualitative and quantitative data derived from participant interviews a nd responses to questionnaires. Demographics were collected and baseline assessments were completed at the time of discharge. The study was designed so that each stroke surv ivor was interviewed for approximately 50 minutes. Qualitative data were obtained dur ing at home, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the stroke survivors at one and six months. Interviews were completed with the stroke survivor first; probing questi ons were presented to capture stroke related disability and recovery. Interviews were ta pe recorded, transcribe d verbatim, verified, and entered into QSR N6, a software applicatio n designed to assist w ith qualitative data analysis [232].

PAGE 65

52 Fear of falling was not part of the fo rmal assessments. Participants instead spontaneously talked about fear of falling as an important part of managing their daily lives and their experiences post stroke. Transc riptions of all interv iews at one and six months for all 132 participants in the larger study were transferred in to a word processing document to enable identification of those who discussed fear of falling and concerns about falls, balance, and stability. Identification of participants with a f ear of falling was conducted via a semantic content analysis of the qualitative intervie ws. During reviews of interviews, the following word list was developed from the text. These words were then used to search all word documents: fall, fell, balance, trip, stumble, wobble, wabbly, slip, dizzy, dizziness, walk, walking, walker, cane, crutches, crutch, fear fearful, afraid, scared, worry, worried. Participants were identified for inclusion in this sub study when they specifically stated they were fearful or used statements /words regarding concern, confidence, or fear related to falling, balance, or mobility. A qua litative research speci alist validated this review of qualitative data and selection of participants with fear of falling. A second dataset was created that included all one a nd six-month interviews for participants identified as fearful. This dataset of interviews was coded to identify themes related to the experience of fear of falling. The interviews for those identified as f earful of falling were coded in N-6 to identify themes derived from the interviews All coding was validated by a rehabilitation health care professional. Characterizations quotes from participants, and recorded observations were used to identify three main recurrent themes that were refined during analyses. The three initial coding themes were “physical”, “psychosocial”, and

PAGE 66

53 “strategies for managing fear of falling”. Each code included sub-codes that have been listed in the coding structure found in Tabl e 4-1. Content analysis was completed to identify phrases and sentences under this co ding structure. A phrase or sentence could be coded under more than one primary or secondary theme. Table 4-1. Coding structure fo r qualitative interviews Primary Theme Secondary Themes Paralysis/hemiplegia Fell at time of stroke Balance/stability Dizziness Decreased participation Injury (such as hip frac ture or head injury) Falls as a Physical Event Talk about falls (stumble, trip, wabble, etc) Fear, afraid, concern Caregiver afraid will fall Fearing Falls Afraid of injury Walker/cane/WC/wall/other Relies on others Strategies for Managing Fear of Falling Being careful In addition to the qualitative interviews, stroke survivors comp leted standardized measures to assess activity performance of ADLs and IADLs and depression. Caregivers also completed standardized measures of depression and caregiver burden. Most often, caregivers and stroke survivor s were not interviewed with each other in the room. Outcome Measures Demographic data were collect ed at baseline for each str oke survivor and caregiver included in the qualitative and quantitative an alyses. Stroke survivor demographic data included age, gender, race/ethnicity, empl oyment status, income, and comorbidities recorded in their medical records. Base line standardized assessments included the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) to as sess functional status and the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) [233, 234] to measure cognitive status.

PAGE 67

54 Functional status The FIM was utilized to measure functional status at baseline and was repeated at one and six months. The FIM is the most wi dely used method of assessing functional ability in persons with disability. Reliabi lity and validity of the FIM have been established [235, 236]. The FIM consists of 18-items and responses are scored on a 7level ordinal scale with six subscales: self-c are, sphincter control, transfer capability, locomotion, communication, and social cogni tion [235]. The FIM was utilized as a measure of severity of disability a nd functional status change over time. The Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) was used to measure IADLs. The FAI is a valid and reliable measure used to better assess normal living activ ities that occur among community dwelling adults [ 237]. The FAI is composed of 15 items and three major subscales: domestic chores, leisure/work, a nd outdoor activities. Scores range from 0 (inactive) to 45 (very active). Wilkinson et al [224] defined intact IADL function with an FAI score of over 15. Cognitive status The MMSE, a standardized test used to ev aluate basic cognitive abilities, assessed mild to moderate cognitive impairme nt for the stroke survivors [233, 234]. Depression Stroke survivor and caregiver depres sion was assessed using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The GDS has been used with the elderly population and those who are cognitively impaired. It is a 30-item scale with dichotomous variables (yes, no). Reliability, internal consistency, test-retest va lidity, and concurrent validity have all been established for the GDS [238]. Higher scores indicate increased leve ls of depression.

PAGE 68

55 Caregiver demographics, burden, and coping Demographic data on caregivers included age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and relationship to patient. Caregiver bur den was measured using the Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ c ontains 27 items with three different subscales: satisfaction with the care recipient, satisfaction with one’s own performance as a caregiver, and consequences of involvem ent in care for the personal life of the caregiver. Each item is scored using a four poi nt Likert type scale; burden is determined by summing the three scales. Higher scori ng indicates higher levels of burden experienced by the caregiver. The three subscales and the ag gregate burden score have all been demonstrated to be both valid and re liable for use with stroke survivors. The Sense of Coherence (SOC) questionnaire is a global measure of the ability to mobilize adaptive coping resources and is used as a measure of coping ability. The SOC is a 13-item, self-report scale which has b een utilized in over 20 countries [239, 240]. The items on the scale are on a Likert-type sc ale, and possible scores on the SOC range from 13-91, with higher scores indicating be tter ability to cope This scale has demonstrated strong internal validity, reliabi lity, and test-retest corr elations. Specifically, Cronbach’s alpha (internal cons istency) has ranged from 0.74 to 0.91 and the test-retest correlations for 12-month follow-ups ranged between 0.54 and 0.78. Analysis of Quantitative Data Quantitative data were used to describe the sample and to explore outcome measures. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographic characteristics and performance of ADLs a nd IADLs, depression, and cognition for those who did and did not discuss fear of falling. A chi-square was completed to examine the proportions of participants who reported fear of falling at one month and six months post-

PAGE 69

56 stroke. Additional descriptive statistics for car egivers delineated by stroke survivor fear of falling status are included. Results Description of Sample The larger study enrolled 132 participants. Overall, 42 (32%) participants discussed fear of falling at either one or six months and 90 (68%) did not. See Table 4-2 for demographics of those with and without fear of falling. Table 4-2. Baseline data for those wi th and without fear of falling (FoF) Measures No FoF During 6 Months FoF During 6 Months n 90 42 Age 65.62 (9.68) 67.50 (11.93) White 29 (32%) 19 (45%) AA 34 (38%) 16 (38%) PR Hispanic 27 (30%) 7 (17%) Values are mean (SD) when appropriate A total of 33 (25%) participants were id entified as fearful at one month. Nine additional individuals described fear of falling at month six (7%). Thir teen participants (10%) discussed fear of falling at both one and six months. Theref ore, 20 participants (61%) who reported fear of falli ng at one month did not discus s fearful at six months. In total, 22 participants (17%) de scribed fear of falling at mont h six (13 were fearful at one and six months plus 9 new participants discu ssed fear at six months ). See Table 4-3 for demographics and baseline data for particip ants with fear at one and six months. Relationships Between Fear of fallin g, Functional Status, and Depression To explore the relationship between f ear of falling, functional status, and depression, we used descriptive statistics to provide a profil e for stroke survivors with fear of falling using data on ADLs, IADLs, depression, and cognition. See Table 4-4 for the mean scores and standard deviations of the FIM, FAI, MMSE, and GDS scores for

PAGE 70

57 the 42 unique individuals with fear of fa lling and the 90 who did not discuss fear. Participants demonstrated cons istent increases in FIM and FAI scores from baseline and one month to six months scores regardless of fear of falling st atus. T-tests were completed to assess differences between thos e with and without fear of falling. There were no statistical differences for any asse ssment scores between those who did and did not discuss fear of falling. The participants with fear of falling are slightly older and demonstrate a somewhat lower functional st atus. Depression and c ognition scores for those who did and did not discuss fear of falling did not appear to differ. Table 4-3. Baseline/discharge data for thos e discussing fear of falling at one and six months Month 1 FoF Month 6 FoF 33 FoF at Month 1 9 New FoF at 6 Months 13 FoF at 1 and 6 Months 22 Total FoF at 6 Months ( 9 + 13 ) n 33 (25%) 9 (7%) 13 (10%) 22 (17%) Age 64.58 (10.42) 78.22 (11.45) 68.08 (8.34) 72.23 (10.76) White 15 (45%) 4 (44%) 6 (46%) 10 (45%) AA 11 (33%) 5 (56%) 3 (23%) 8 (36%) PR Hispanic 7 (21%) 0 (0%) 4 (31%) 4 (18%) MMSE 26.52 (2.40) 25.44 (3.97) 26.92 (2.90) 26.65 (3.20) FIM Motor 73.10 (11.89) 74.56 (11.26) 74.69 (12.04) 74.63 (11.45) FIM Cog 31.18 (3.25) 31.22 (3.47) 31.84 (3.34) 31.59 (3.32) FIM Total 104.27 (14.20) 105.78 (11.64) 106.54 (2.9) 106.23 (13.17) (AA = African American, PR = Puerto Rican) In addition, we examined scoring of i ndividual FAI and FIM items specific to activities that may be directly affected by fear of falling. Sp ecifically we reported scoring for “social occasions” and “walking outsi de for > 15 minutes” on the FAI and the “walk/wheelchair” and “stairs” items from th e FIM. See Table 4-5 for specific FAI and FIM items for those who did and did not disc uss fear of falling. Fi ndings indicate that those with fear of falling scored somewhat lower on all FIM and FAI individual items at all assessment times. T-tests compared differe nces and only the FIM “stairs” item was

PAGE 71

58 statistically significant different between thos e with and without fear of falling. Such a result would not be uncommon in an elderl y population, and those post-stroke would be assumed to have increased difficulty with stair climbing. Changes in IADLs were reflected in the qualitative interviews. Some pa rticipants talked about falls at home, often in the bathroom, while performing basic ADL s. However, more often participants commented on falls and fear of falling during higher-level activities, such as walking around a store, community outings such as c hurch or social gatherings, and physical activities such as stair cl imbing. Thus IADLs and stair climbing were more likely impacted by fear of falling in this higher functioning post-stroke group of participants. These patterns of decreased performance in ADLs and IADLs for those with post-stroke fear of falling warrant future research to better understand the impact on activity, participation, and general quality of life. Table 4-4. Baseline/discharge data and outcome measures for those wi th and without fear of falling Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months n 90 42 Age 65.62 (9.68) 67.50 (11.93) Baseline FIM motor 75.71 (17.40) 73.40 (11.64) FIM cognition 31.14 (4.18) 31.19 (3.26) FIM total 106.86 (20.47) 104.60 (13.57) MMSE 26.76 (3.35) 26.29 (2.79) Month 1 FIM motor 80.46 (15.59) 78.86 (11.75) FIM cognition 32.27 (3.47) 31.19 (3.85) FIM total 112.73 (17.66) 110.05 (13.54) FAI 30.54 (10.44) 27.26 (10.58) MMSE 26.60 (3.05) 26.76 (2.54) GDS 8.84 (6.59) 9.33 (6.76) Month 6 FIM motor 82.84 (13.54) 82.69 (8.31) FIM cognition 32.45 (3.72) 32.33 (2.95) FIM total 115.30 (15.59) 115.03 (9.83) FAI 33.13 (11.29) 31.50 (11.40)

PAGE 72

59 Table 4-4. Continued table No FoF FoF During 6 months MMSE 27.17 (3.82) 26.53 (3.18) GDS 8.76 (6.92) 9.03 (5.98) Of the 33 participants who discussed fear of falling at month one, 13 (39%) continued to demonstrate fear of falling at m onth six. See Table 4-6 for frequency counts. A chi-square test was calculated examini ng the proportions of participants who were identified as fearful of falling at month 1 a nd who continued to be fearful at month 6. A significant interaction was found (X2, p< .05), and those with f ear of falling at month one were likely to demonstrate fear of falling at month six, see Table 4-7. Table 4-5. Scoring of FAI and FIM items for those with and without fear of falling Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months n 90 42 Baseline FIM, walk/wheelchair 5.78 (1.44) 5.48 (1.40) FIM, stairs 4.41 (2.34) 3.74 (2.30) Month 1 FAI, social occasions 2.50 (1.32) 2.26 (1.27) FAI, walking outside 2.90 (1.38) 2.60 (1.38) FIM, walk/wheelchair 6.17 (1.30) 5.76 (1.19) FIM, stairs 5.50 (1.87) 4.64 (2.08) Month 6 FAI, social occasions 2.84 (1.28) 2.78 (1.20) FAI, walking outside 2.97 (1.31) 2.61 (1.44) FIM, walk/wheelchair 6.39 (1.16) 6.08 (1.16) FIM, stairs 5.88 (1.75) 4.97 (1.95) * Statistically significant at the < 0.05 level Table 4-6. Frequency counts of fear of falling at one and six months FoF at 6 Months Total N o FoF FoF Missing FoF at Month 1 No FoF 90 9 99 FoF 16 13 4 33 Total 106 22 4 132 Table 4-7. Proportions of those with and w ithout fear of falling and chi square Month 1 Month 6 X2 Fear of Falling 25% 17% No Fear of Falling 75% 83% .000

PAGE 73

60 We also examined the relationship between fear of falling and caregiver depression, burden, and coping, see Table 48. Caregiver results are delineated by stroke survivor fear of falling status. There were no significant differences in caregiver scoring in depression, burden or coping skills between those providing care for those with and without fear of falling (p > 0.05). However, in the interviews, it was common for caregivers to comment on fears related to str oke survivor falls a nd injury. Additionally, many stroke survivors indicated dependence on ca regivers as a strategy to prevent falls. Table 4-8. Comparison of caregivers for partic ipants with and without fear of falling Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months n 90 42 Caregiver Age 59.80 (14.10) 59.38 (11.83) Month 1 GDS 6.62 (6.17) 6.97 (5.65) SCQ 51.64 (10.02) 50.08 (12.57) SOC 71.42 (13.37) 71.13 (16.65) Month 6 GDS 5.99 (5.57) 6.38 (5.63) SCQ 51.89 (11.76) 52.44 (11.99) SOC 70.54 (13.40) 71.53 (13.69) The Experience of Fear of Falling Post-Stroke Qualitative findings are described in this section. Initially, three major theme headings of “physical”, “psychosocial”, and “strategy” were used for the coding of the qualitative interviews. However, after a revi ew of the qualitative interview data and content analysis, it became evident that the development of fear of falling is a process, one that often impacts everyday life. Therefore, we present the characterization of fear of falling as the process that reflects the way st roke survivors experien ce fear of falling in their everyday lives. Data indicated that th e beginning of the proce ss was often the first sustained fall that usually occurred at th e time of the stroke. Participants discussed themes related to: bodily changes that influe nced falls and fear of falling, experiences

PAGE 74

61 related to a pervasive fear of fall and injur y, and the impact of f ear of falling on activity and everyday life. The unpredicta bility of falls and the resu ltant general acceptance of fear became evident, making strategies to manage falls and fear of falling necessary. Each of these themes are described below. See Table 4-9 for original content analysis frequencies derived from 33 month one interviews and 22 from month 6 interviews. Table 4-9. Content analysis frequencies (derived from 55 qualitative interviews) Primary theme Secondary Themes Frequency Paralysis/hemiplegia 15 27% Fell at time of stroke 22 40% Balance/stability 21 38% Dizziness 17 31% Decreased participation 14 25% Injury (such as hip fractu re or head injury) 6 11% Talk about falls (stumble, trip, wabble, etc) 45 82% Falls as a Physical Event Total from 55 intervie ws 140 occurrences Fear, afraid, concern 32 58% Caregiver afraid will fall 16 29% Afraid of injury 6 11% Fearing Falls Total from 55 interv iews 108 occurrences Walker/cane/WC/wall/other 35 63% Relies on others 9 17% Being careful 27 49% Strategies for Managing Fear of Falling Total from 55 interv iews 152 occurrences Onset of falling with the stroke event Falling at the time of a stroke is a co mmon experience and maybe a harbinger of development of fear of falling. For some, ha ving a fall signaled a possible second stroke, thus fear of falling and fear of another str oke became intertwined. Others discussed the fall at the time of the stroke and the experi ence of laying on the floor without someone to help them. Fear associated with a possible fa ll continued as indivi duals were concerned about falling in the future and being left on the floor for substantial periods of time. One participant stated “Yes, I fell. It was horrible; I lost control of my left arm, and my hand,

PAGE 75

62 my left foot. They failed me and that’s why I fell.” Others said “When I had the stroke, I was, I couldn’t walk. I had to crawl and if I tr ied to stand up at all my legs and things, just like that (unintelligible), sit down quick or you would fall over” and ”Well, when I fell, I knew I had a stroke and I was in such a ba d shape. I was sweatin ’, the worst kind of sweat and I asked the Lord.” Some stroke survivors who fell at the time of their stroke were living with the fear of another stroke and of future falls. One pa rticipant commented, “I was scared of falling, you know, uh it’s sorta like it was the othe r stroke, you know?” These participants equated the two and feared both. They reali zed a future stroke may further limit their abilities and independence. However, the f ear they live with daily may limit activity performance and in itself cause increased de pendence. These early experiences of falling with stroke onset represen t the early stages of development of fear of falling. Experiencing the changed body Another part of the process of developing fear of falling is related to experiencing the changed body. The residual motor deficits rela ted to mobility were of great concern to many participants. Changes in movement a nd ability of the lower extremities were frequently described. Individuals discussed not being able to move the same as before the stroke, and how this negatively impacts m obility, adding to the fear of falling. For example, participants made several statemen ts about fearing thei r legs would no longer function properly. Some said, “My legs give out real fast”, “I fear, I f ear a little that my legs don’t fail me”, and “No, that’s what I, I mean, well, as I told you before, you always worry about a leg failure or th at, right?” Others stated, “O h, am I tired. I’m tired. Legs just bow, buckle underneath me”, “I’ll be walk ing and all of a sudden I’m making love to the pavement”, and “Let’s see, after I walk so long (long pause) the feeling that any time

PAGE 76

63 now, the hip and leg are gonna gi ve out and I’m gonna fall, so I watch where I walk so that if I would fall, I wouldn’t fall into something too expensive (laughs).” Bodily changes were also related to the lo ss of balance, stability, and strength. For example, one man stated, “Uh, the only pr oblems I can think of I’m having now is balance…around me I have to hold onto thin gs, so it’s a balan ce problem and I’m, sometime I’m tipping and leaning and, prone to fall down.” Many talked freely about paralysis and hemiplegia, or general change s to their body, most often impacting balance and strength. Another commente d, “Well, weak in the knees still weak, have to walk more slowly and seems like sometimes I get a little wobbly cause I’m so weak and I haven’t got all my strength b ack yet.” Interestingly, some pa rticipants discussed concerns related to their balance, but did not specifically discuss falls or fear of falling. For instance, one man stated, “The only thing that concerns me is my balance, sometimes I lose my balance a little bit, that’s about it, no thing else . because the balance, it isn’t all right.” This may be important when utilizi ng fear of falling assessments, as participants may worry about balance, but not connect the concern to fear of future falls. Participants also discussed dizziness as a common aspect of the changed body. For many, dizziness became a part of everyday life making falls and fear of falling very common. When feeling dizzy, part icipants would discuss the need to curb walking or other activities and their need for assistance to maintain their balance and prevent a fall. As an example, one man stated “I get dizzy a nd I start falling down”, and others stated “I am insecure when I walk around the house, because I get dizzy, and I start falling face down. My nervous system doesn’t help me . and it’s not the same” or “Helped my wife

PAGE 77

64 in a lot of things . but now I can’t, because now . now I get dizzy and I start falling face down, I can’t I’m not stable, I don’t feel self-secured.” The participants who experienced post-s troke bodily changes often developed unpredictable episodes of imbala nce, instability, a nd dizziness. These changes were often related to hemiplegia, paralysis, and other post-stroke bodily change s and were reflected in their discussions of insecu rity in mobility and subsequent falls and fear of falling. A pervasive fear of the unpredictable Participants often described a pervasive sense of fear of falling. Some specifically talked about being afraid of a fall in the future. When the interviewer asked “What are your greatest concerns about your body now?” a participant stated “Fear of falling . I think that’s most concern of everybody is fa lls.” Others commented that “My greatest concern, that I don’t fall, that I don’t have another stroke” and “That is my fear, well, that I could fall. That is what, what they look for, that I don’t fall. Because in order to get up afterwards is hell.” Another stated “I fear a little that my legs . that my legs don’t fail me” and a different man said “One feels af raid of falling and even dying because I can get hit by something. I fell and almost hit my head, and thank God, I hit my butt instead.” Some participants avoided the use the words ‘afraid’ or ‘fearful’ in relation to falls. Instead, individuals often talked about having a concern about falls, balance, or safety. One standard interview question asked partic ipants about their c oncerns post-stroke, many discussed issues related to balance, st ability, dizziness, falls, safety, and walking. Some stated, “Trouble with balance, but I’m not about to fall” or “The only . thing that concerns me is the balance, sometimes I lose my balance a little bi t but that’s about it, nothing else.”

PAGE 78

65 Still others talked about fear of falling and not feeling safe. Safety therefore became an issue for participants while at home and in the communit y. One man said, “I don’t feel safe because the people there run around. And I don’t feel safe because I sit in a corner, and I tell you, they can trip you over.” and anot her stated “I didn’t feel safe ‘cause I didn’t know if I was goin’ to fall or what.” Participants characterizing f ear of falling often talked a bout the fear of sustaining future fall related injuries. Some made the following comments: “Ummm . I worry because there have been times where I have tripped and nailed myself” and “I’m afraid to. I’ll lose my balance. That’s a long wa ys down. The fall wouldn’t hurt you, it’s just the sudden stop (laughs) . That ground’s hard. Like I say that fall ain’t gonna hurt ya.” Of most concern were hip fractures and h ead injuries. For example, some stated, “Cause once you fall, could break a hip” and “I think it’s falli ng like it it’s it’ s falling, all the time that’s your worst fear, it’s falling a nd you might hurt or break a leg, or or or or you might uhh break a hip or something, I th ink you’re more conscious of it yeah.” Participants described genuine concern about being hurt after sustaining a fall and the subsequent impact on functi on, one commented, “Uh huh, it wo rries me; I can fall and hurt myself bad, or hit my head and make it worse than it is.” Those who discussed a fear of falling tended to discuss fears and concerns related to falls, future falls, and safety issues. Wh ile many participants specifically and openly discussed fear of falling, many others onl y admitted to concerns about balance and stability, not addressing actua l fear. Those who communicated fears about future falls were also likely to discuss fear of future injuries. For these individuals, the fear of falling, and the prevention of falls often b ecame a part of everyday life.

PAGE 79

66 Falls as an everyday life experience Participants discussed how falls became a frequent event and a common concern, often part of every day life. For example, one man said, “Sometimes I fall down, but I’m used to that now” For some, it seems that falls and fear of falling became all consuming. Regardless of the frequency of falls, fear of falling became a constant worry for some. Falls as a common occurrence were expressed in the following statements: “I always fall on the stairs” and “I’d make about four step s and I fall down” or “I worried about those steps out there . every time I fall it’s been on those steps” Some participants were concerned they would fall while out in the community and they addressed the embarrassment of a public fall. One individual commented, “Yeah. Uh huh. Do something that I find difficult to do, is not be embarrassed when you stumble and watch when you’re going somewhere.” They we re also concerned a bout how they looked while walking around and seemed to be worried about the stigma related to falls and decreased mobility. One man discussed the follo wing situation: “What worries me is that I had the experience that I fell down, I fell down on a street, someone called 911 and they picked me up because when I fell I had lost my conscience, because I have unbalance in my legs, I fall down.” Strategies for managing fear of falling Because fear of falling became an all consuming issue for some participants, talk about strategies for the prevention of future falls and management of fear of falling was common. Many participants discussed limiting everyday life activities, such as ADLs and IADLs at home and out in the community. One participant said, “You know, I was, I, I’m generally, well, no I wasn’t a real religious fella or anything like that but I did go to church occasionally with my wife on Sunda y, y’know. But uh, I, in fact the last time I

PAGE 80

67 went to church with her I lost my complete balance as we were walkin’ out o’church, because of the fall problem I have, and I almost knocked an old lady down. So that was a concern for me and I wouldn’t go back to church. Y’know, since the stroke I’ve lost confidence” Another man commented, “Well, we ll, like I tell you, I stutter, I stutter more, I wobble and uh that’s why I don’t, I don’t get out in the street s to much, I could, I have enough energy to go walk and more but I don’t” Others discussed limiting higher level skills, for example, “Well, now I can’t (laughing), now it’s impossible for me to climb a ladder. Now I can’t do it because I can’t get up the ladder (unintelligible), I fall.” Participants also discussed the use of assi stive devices such as walkers, canes, and wheel chairs to reduce falls and feel secure in their environment. As an example, one man said, “Yeah, I use a cane . ahhh . just to . for protection like in, so I don’t fall. Because, you know, somewhere along the line there was times when my leg felt like it was going to give out, but it didn’t.” and anothe r stated, “I keep my cane . because I never know whether one of my legs is gonna deci de to give out, so I keep my cane with me.” Other individuals expressed their us e of assistive devices with the following quotations, “Like that cane. Once I, I got it se t right by the door over there, ‘cause I go out that door, I’ll grab that cane, keep my ba lance . And when I get out the door I got things I can hang onto but once I get away from it I can’t. I gotta have that cane. So I gotta have that cane handy” or “Mainly the on ly reason I use the walker is for balance.” Interestingly, some even used the furniture or walls as an alternative to assistive devices. One participant stated, “I feel safe, like I say, the only thing th at I am, ahh, really concerned about in here is afte r I walk so long that my hip starts giving away and then I might fall into somebody of up against someth ing and break something, so I watch that.

PAGE 81

68 If I have a banister, I feel, great, hold on to the banister,” and an interviewer commented, “At times, it was noted that he was unsteady on his feet and often used the furniture for balance.” Participants also discussed where they used assistive device. Some commented on using a device at the store or out in the co mmunity, but not at home. For example, “Yeah, when I go in stores I carry my cane, and if I didn’t I’d probably fall” and another, “I got a walker in there that I use wh enever I go up the hospital. Here in the house I really don’t, I use a cane occasionally, but you have the wall here, everything’s close, see, y’know.” Others indicated reliance on others as an additional strategy util ized to reduce falls and manage fear of falling. One man stated, “I wa s settin’ there goin’ to the left like that, kept slidin’ to the left, cause the left side’s gone. It was in these he re foldin’ chairs. She pulls hers right up side of me, leans up there be fore so I can lean against her, instead of fallin’ out of the chair . Yeah, she’s sittin’ on the left and she slid her chair right up against mine, put her shoulder there where I can lean against her, keep me a slidin’ out, fallin’ out of this chair.” Many discussed dependence on their caregivers or others for the maintenance of balance and the prevention of fa lls. A participant referred to his caregiver and said, “Oh, sure, grabbin’ my hand, helpin’ me help straight up and down, keepin’ me from fallin’, she’ll walk along side of me every now and then, and, when I need her, you can tell you know why I’m a little more off balance.” Others commented, “Well my beliefs are that I never will walk alone, I can’t be alone at any time”, “I’m afraid of falling when she’s not here. I may hurt myself . Yeah, it makes a difference when she is here, I walk around and all th at.” and “Well, yes, he help s me get ready to go to the

PAGE 82

69 bathroom, because sometimes I fall.” One state d, “ . I want someone beside me to tell me things and . At least to prevent me from falling because the last time I fell.” Some caregivers were in the room during the interview and interjected information about falls and their fear of the stroke survivor falling in the future. Caregivers made the following comments, “I’m afraid he’s going to fall again”, “We don’t want him to fall”, and “Cause I’m afraid he’ll fa ll and wouldn’t be able to get up.” Stroke survivors were aware of their caregiver’s surv eillance of possible falls and attempts to decrease falls incidence. For instance, one stroke survivor commented, “My wife keeps attention when I walk, if I fall or something”, and another said, “She was watching me, to see if I was gonna fall.” Still others stated, “Well, they he lp me to stand up and walk, right? And they fear that I might fall, right?” Another said, “During the day my wife is here with me in the house, here . paying attention to ev erything I do, too. If go walk over there she’s paying attention that I d on’t fall or anything.” A general tool for the management of fear of falling and a reduction of future falls was simply to “be careful” or “cautious”. Fo r example, one man said, “I don’t know how to describe it but I think that you, uhh, are more cautious and more careful like, uhh, umm, in you, when you in bathrooms, if you ’re in the shower and, uhh, you have to use, sit down in the chair so that you won’t fa ll.” Being “careful” while performing specific mobility and other everyday activities was commonly addressed. Being cautious was expressed in the following ex cerpts: “It’s about the same, only thing you do is um, make sure you don’t trip over nothin’ an’ try your best to sit some place where you don’t fall off of nothin’” and “I walk slower. I take my time now . but I, uh, try my best to avoid tripping. I just slow down.” A nother said, “Yeah, I, uh, had to be very careful ‘cause, uh,

PAGE 83

70 I first come home, home from the hospital, I’d try to get outta’ my chair and I fell a couple a’ times.” One man said, “I have to be careful when I walk. I might fall.” Many different strategies were utilized for the prevention of falls and the management of the complexity of fear of fa lling. Participants discu ssed use of assistive devices, reliance on others, and simply being co gnizant of their own personal fall risks. To summarize, quantitative and qualitativ e data were analyzed to explore the characterization of fear of falling post-stroke The main themes derived from the data conceptualize the proces s of developing fear of falling, of ten beginning at the time of the stroke or initial fall and con tinuing as individuals live with f ear of falling as part of their daily lives and learn to manage their new bodies and strategize against future falls and fear of falling. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the development of fear of falling in the post-stroke populati on. It is also the first qual itative studies on fear of falling in the elderly. Characteri zation of post-stroke fear of falling has been derived from analyses of the qualitative interviews and desc riptions of participants using standardized assessment scores. It is evident that falls a nd fear of falling are difficulties faced by many of those who have sustained a stroke, often on a daily basis. Our findings are based on secondary analyses and indicate that further study of the development of post-stroke fear of falling and its management at home and in the community is warranted. Many of the participants disc ussed falls and fear of fa lling during the first one to six months post stroke. The experience of falls is supported by research completed by Forster and Young who reported a 73% incidenc e of falls in the first six months poststroke [79]. Our reports of fear of falling were less than expected when compared to the

PAGE 84

71 community elderly population. Researchers have indicated fear of falling in 29%-92% of those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% of those without a r ecent fall [46, 70, 113, 115, 144-152]. In our study, 25% of participan ts (33 of 133) in month one and 32% (42/132) of all participants de scribed fear during the first six months post stroke. The lower fear of falling incidence may be related to the high functioning of our participants. At discharge, the mean FIM mo tor score for all participants, regardless of fear of falling, was 74.98 (15.79) with a range of 13 to 91, and 46% of all participants scored over 80 (maximum score is 91). This increased to 69% at month one and 74% at month six, indicating a hi gh functioning group of poststroke participants. Incidence may have been impacted by an all male veteran sample. Women are more likely to report a fear of falling [43, 144, 148, 155, 156] and men may underreport fear due to a perceived negative stigma rela ted to their fears. F ear of falling may be underreported because those with the greatest fear may not partake in research [155, 241] and others may fear ins titutionalization [143, 150]. Characterization of Fear of Falling Participants discussed the characterizati on of fear of falling. Through review and analysis of the interviews and exploration of post-stroke fear of falling functional status, we have determined five important factor s to include in the characterization: (1) The time of the initial fall: participan ts often discussed a first fall coinciding with their stroke. Participants realized they we re at risk for both future falls and strokes and indicated fear of decreas ed abilities and subsequent dependence on others. This provides a preliminary exploration of the timi ng and development of fear of falling after stroke. Timing may be related to the impact fear has on everyday life and important when evaluating assessments and the efficacy of interventions to reduce future falls and

PAGE 85

72 management of fear of falling. In preparation fo r discharge, clinicians need to talk with patients about fear of falling and how they will manage safely at home. (2) Post-stroke related changes in the body: resultant declines in balance, stability, strength, and dizziness due to hemiplegia and paralysis we re commonly discussed. Yates and colleagues previously determined increa sed fall risks related to post-stroke motor impairments [78]. This sample of post-stroke participants discussed decreased mobility due to the stroke and how it rela ted to increased risk of futu re falls and fear of falling. Rehabilitation clinicians and researchers need to develop interventions to support mobility and safety among those patient s with post-stroke fear of falling. (3) Pervasive fear of future falls: many natu rally discussed fear of falling, falls, and balance issues when discussing post-stroke co ncerns and barriers. In contrast, others discussed concern or trouble regarding balance, stability, strength, or their “legs giving out” but did not admit to actual fear. Pe rhaps the stigma of “being afraid” was overwhelming, especially for an all male veteran population. Researchers have demonstrated increased likelihood of female f ear of falling, perhaps our all male veteran population were embarrassed to admit such fears [43, 144, 148, 155, 156]. The difference in levels of fear may impact future resear ch when assessing fear of falling evaluations and preventative interventions. Participants not admitting to being fearful may require different interventions to manage issues re lated to fear of falling and future falls. (4) Every day fear of falling: it became ev ident that different levels of fear of falling existed within this population. There is an apparent continuum of fear of falling in this post-stroke population. It ra nges from a healthy sense of fear to an overwhelming, all encompassing, everyday, obtrusive f ear that is reflected in a “c onstant awareness” of falls

PAGE 86

73 risks and reported changes in activity and partic ipation. The development of fear of falling may have great impact on every day life, for some, it becomes all-consuming. Assessing fear of falling and ope nly discussing it with patients and their caregivers may help them manage more efficiently after discharge. (5) Strategies for the management of f ear of falling: par ticipants discussed individual techniques to manage falls and fear of falling. Ma ny discussed restricting or modifying performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation due to fear. Activity restriction is common in those with fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly [43, 113, 114, 143, 148, 186, 187, 225-230]. Those with f ear of falling related activity restrictions may become incr easingly dependent on caregiver s. This may impact stroke caregiver burden and depression. The use of assistive devices su ch as walkers, canes, and wheel chairs was also common. Others discu ssed being careful or cautious to manage falls and fear of falling. Overa ll, the development of strategi es indicate that a certain, normal, healthy fear may reduce future falls. Because fall risks are multidimensional [52, 65-67], the independent use of multiple strategies represents the need for multidimensional and individualized interventions. In summary, the process of fear of falling may begin at the time of the fall, often coinciding with the stroke, possibly making the time of the development of fear an important issue. We found that mobility issu es related to changes in the body greatly impact falls and fear of falling, and that th e actual fear or concer n may differ dependent on individuals, ability levels, and possible fear of stigma or embarrassment. Interestingly, participants naturally developed strategies to manage fear of falling and their fall risks.

PAGE 87

74 Perhaps this was necessary because for some, fear of falling became an all consuming aspect of life, impacting activity and participation. Limitations There are several limitations to this study. Our study primarily used qualitative data derived from a larger study. We were restricted to a convenience sample. Common to all qualitative studies, generaliza tion is not possible, although fi ndings may be informative across similar populations. This study was a secondary analysis of na turally occurring data. There was not a specific interview question relate d to falls, fear of falling, or post-stroke mobility, and we did not include a standardized fear of falli ng or falls incidence assessment. We were dependent on the use of natural conversati on elicited from questi ons regarding changes since stroke, concerns about bodily changes, and barriers to everyday life to determine those who would be considered fearful of falling. Although this naturalistic approach derives significant amounts of information, all of those with fear of falling may have not been considered in the qualitative and qua ntitative analyses, thus possibly reducing detection of fear of falling incidence. Future Research Because falls and fear of falling are unpred ictable, it is of great concern to those managing life post-stroke. This preliminar y research provides insight into the development of fear of falling after discha rge home post-stroke and the impact it has on activity and participation. It is evident that some people develop a fear that promotes safe completion of activities. However, others are likely to engage in a cycle of restricted activities and then experience further functi onal losses. This plays into the “vicious circle” portrayed by Delbaere and colleagues who suggested a pattern between reduced

PAGE 88

75 activities and decreased muscle strength and balance, leading to further declines in ADLs, increased falls incidence and fear of falli ng, and completing the circle with additional declines in activities [114]. Li et al. discussed the existing relationship between fear of falling and falls efficacy, the effect on balan ce and physical disabil ity, continuations in deteriorated health, and fu ture falls and development of fear of falling [194]. Clearly, more interventions are needed to assist stroke survivors and their caregivers to effectively manage this cycle. It is important to acknowledge the number of individuals who return home with signifi cant residual mobility losses. This was a relatively high functioning post-st roke population, and still many discussed fear of falling and the necessity to manage it with assistive devices, activ ity restriction, and decreased functioning. Future studies are needed to better define the natural history and experience of the development of post-stroke fear of falling in the home and community. The utilization of standardized fear of falling assessments, such as the Falls Efficacy Scale or the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, both recently found valid and reliable for the post-stroke population, [173-175] combined with qualitative data will provide more complete explanations to better understa nd fear of falling development. This dual qualitative and quantitative re search study provided prelimin ary information to justify future research. Addressing the impact of fear on quality of life and life satisfaction will be an important step in determining the impact of fear on post-stroke management. Important future research will include the advent of a fear of falling intervention specific for the post-stroke population. Likely, interventions to manage fear of falling and reduce

PAGE 89

76 fall rates will require individual treatment plans and will need to address the very issues described by these participants.

PAGE 90

77 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The objective of this disser tation was to utilize seconda ry data from two larger studies to examine the impact of post-stroke gait velocity and fear of falling on activity and participation [8, 11]. In Chapter One, we presented a conceptual framework as the foundation for this research (Figure 1-2). The framework indicates th at those who sustain a stroke are likely to demonstrate sensor y, cognitive, and motor impairments. These impairments are reflected by mobility disabili ty, specifically changes in gait speed and fear of falling. Through reviews of the literature, we speculated that change in gait speed or the development of fear of falling would be associated with change in stroke survivor performance of activities of daily living (ADLs) (includi ng mobility), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) social participa tion. Additionally we believed that such changes in activity and partic ipation, and therefore independe nce, would impact caregiver depression, burden, and coping. Our findings indicate that mobility disability was demonstrated in both of our poststroke populations. The first study examined c linically meaningful changes in gait speed and the second study explored fear of falling. In support of our model, we observed that those who portrayed a clinically meaningf ul increase in gait speed demonstrated improved performance in ADLs, IADLs, mob ility, and social participation. We also described how a post-stroke veteran population ch aracterizes fear of falling in the first six months after discharge. In addition we exam ined post-stroke activ ity, participation, and depression in those discussing fear of falling.

PAGE 91

78 In the fist study, we measured the proporti ons of participants who successfully advanced to a higher ambulati on classification, demonstratin g a clinically meaningful change in gait velocity. Forty-five percent of our total sample transitioned to a higher classification; however, after baseline gait speed stratification, 63% of those walking slower than 0.4 meters/second (m/s) and 38% walking between 0.4 and 0.8 m/s advanced to the next ambulation classifi cation. This indicates that thos e with the slowest speed, and possibly the most severe mobility deficits, ha ve the greatest potential for gains in gait velocity. We also compared the differences in Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) measured ADLs/IADLs, mobility, social participation, and physical functioning (SIS-16) dependent on success or failure of advancement to a higher ambulation cl assification. After controlling for a significant diffe rence in age, all SIS scores for those with baseline gait velocity less than 0.4 m/s were statistically different. In co ntrast, only the participation score was significantly different for those w ith baseline gait velocity between 0.4 and 0.8 m/s. This suggests that a transition to the ne xt ambulation classificat ion is a clinically meaningful change because it is related to in creased function, particul arly for the initially more impaired stroke survivors. This is im portant as it validates the previous ambulation classification developed by Perry and colleague s [9]. More importantly, it confirms the use of ambulation classification in clinical and rehabilitation re search settings. It indicates that using ambulation classifi cation is appropriate for goal setting and that increased gait velocity is associated with highly signifi cant increases in performance of activity and participation.

PAGE 92

79 In the second study, we used qualitative and quantitative data to examine how poststroke veteran populations char acterize fear of falling and th e relationship between fear and ADLs, IADLs, and depression. Additional exploration of caregiver burden, coping, and depression for those caring for post-str oke individuals with fear of falling was completed. It is evident that those with fear demonstrated slightly lower scores for almost all Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Frenchay Activity Index (FAI), and depression scores. This trend was also established for individual FIM and FAI items and caregiver burden, de pression, and coping. Content analysis and review of the quali tative interviews verified that many participants naturally discussed post-stroke falls and fear of falling. We discovered that participants characterize post-stroke fear of fa lling with five main factors, including: (1) the importance of the time of the initial fall, (2) how post-stroke related changes in the body were associated with falls and fear of falling, (3) the pervasive fear and concern of future falls, (4) a continuum of everyday a nd unpredictable fear of falling, and (5) the natural strategies utilized and discussed by pa rticipants for the mana gement of fear of falling and the prevention of falls. These qualitative findings can be related to the examination of data retrieved from the standardized assessments. Participants discussed concern regarding falls during performance of both ADLs and IADLs, but it se ems that participants were more likely to discuss fear of falling in rega rd to the performance of highe r level activity at home and in the community. A small difference in FAI scores between those with and without fear of falling is apparent. This implies that fear of falling had a bigger impact on higher level IADLs in this relatively high functioning post-stroke population. Of additional

PAGE 93

80 importance, participants natura lly developed strategies to pr event falls and manage fear of falling. This may impact future interventions to decrease falls and fear of falling in this population. Programs may need to be individualized dependent on the need and abilities of the post-stroke individual. Th is exploration warrants future research of post-stroke fear of falling. In conclusion, we studied two post-st roke community dwelling populations, and although all participants lived at home, we established that many continued to demonstrate mobility impairments. The pres ent studies provide support of the negative impact of post-stroke mobility changes on act ivity and participation. Further study of gait speed change and its influence on activity and participation is warranted. Natural recovery may play an important role in im provement, but further ev idence is needed to determine appropriate interventions and timi ng of intervention to best enhance gait velocity and consequently improve activity, participation, and quali ty of life. Future research is necessary to better understand the true trajectory of the development of fear of falling after stroke. It is evident that fear of falling development was very individualized and our results provide preliminary data dem onstrating that prevention strategies also need to be individualized. This preliminar y research provides foundational data to continue investigation into post-stroke gait velocity and fear of falling, its impact on everyday life, and future interventions. Co llectively, this resear ch will promote our understanding of post-stroke mobility and its impact on functional independence.

PAGE 94

APPENDIX EVIDENCE BASED TABLE FOR FE AR OF FALLING AND ACTIVITY RESTRICTION

PAGE 95

82 Table A-1. Fear of falling and activity restriction Article Design Sample Fear of falling assess ment Functional Activity Measures Results Arfken, et al., 1994) [43] Crosssectional analysis of data from a prospective study 1 year follow up 890 “At the present time, are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, or not fearful that you may fall (again)?” Mobility activities Social activities Depression Life satisfaction Frailty measure 29% reported some FoF Of those very FoF o 48%not satisfied with life o 25% depression o decreased mobility and social activities o 91% reported at least one characteristic of frailty o 85% exhibited diminished balance o 22% were delayed in getting up after sustaining a fall o 85% impaired balance Brouwer, et al., 2004 [225] Crosssectional study 50 25 with FoF and activity curtailment and 25 without FoF Activity-specific Balance Confidence Human Activity Profile Those with FoF had lower ABC scores, decreased balance, sl ower gait speed, lower limb weakness, and decreased physical health. Similar activity profiles Bruce, et al., 2002 [230] Crosssectional analysis of baseline data from a longitudinal study 1500 females “Are you afraid to fall?” “Do you limit any household activities because you are frightened you may fall?” Do you limit any outside activities because you are frightened you may fall?” “Do you participate in any sports recreation or regular physical exercise?” “Please list any sports recreation or regular physical activity, including walking, that you undertook in the last 3 months” (duration / frequency) 34% afraid of falls More FoF in sedentary woman (45.2%) FoF was independent risk factor for nonparticipation in physical activity Analysis suggests FoF affected activity levels at a predisability stage in those with mildly impaired mobility Chandler, et al., 1996 [113] Secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational study of falls risk 149 male veterans “Would you say that you are somewhat afraid, not afraid, or very afraid of falling?” Mobility performance PADL and IADL Change in inside and outside activity 43% of the high risk participants were very afraid of falling 55% had prior fall Walk time and life space reduced in nonfallers who were very afraid of falling Increased depression in those very afraid of falling Decreased functional reach and activity for those very afraid of falling Decreased walk time, mobility skills, functional reach, IADL, PADL, lifespace, and activity levels if a faller AND very afraid to fall Walk time and IADL were independent contributors to FoF

PAGE 96

83Table A-1. Continued Article Design Sample Fear of falling assess ment Functional Activity Measures Results Cumming, et al., 2000 [143] Secondary data form a prospectivel OT home visit falls prevention study 418 at baseline and 307 at 12 months Falls Efficacy Scale “Are you afraid of falling?” ADLs Use of community services Those with lowest confidence in balance had increased risk of falls, poorer health, significant declines in ADLs, lowest QoL Delbaere, et al., 2004 [114] Crosssectional study and longitudinal study 225 (and 221 for longitudinal portion) Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale Physical Performance Test (physical frailty) Frequent fallers more likely to avoid FoF related activities Mobility tasks avoided the most by those with FoF FoF activity restriction was correlated with physical performance, forward excursion of the center of pressure and muscle strength FoF and activity restriction predicted falls at the one year follow up Stated FoF is a “vicious circle of frailty” where individuals cease activities, but become more fearful and continue to reduce activity, decreasing mobility levels, and becoming more fearful Fletcher and Hirdes, 2004 [229] Crosssectional study 2,304, all receiving home care services “Limited going outdoors due to fear of falling (e.g., stopped using bus, goes out only with others) Minimum Data Set for Home Care Clinical Assessment Protocols IADLs 41.2% restricted activity de to FoF 27% sustained previous fall Predictive factors of activity limitation o Female o Older o Need for informal support for IADLs and ADLs o Being alone for long periods of the day o Impaired gait Howland, et al., 1998 [148] Sample survey 266 “Are you afraid of falling?” Falls history Social support 55% with FoF 56% of those with FoF restricted activity Fear related to function and social support Those with restricted activity: o Did not communicate about falls o Less social support o Knew someone who had fallen Kressign, et al., 2001 [228] Base-line crosssectional study 287 Falls Efficacy Scale Activity-specific Balance Confidence CESD 360 turn Functional reach 10-meter walk Single limb stands Picking up and object Chair stands About of participants demonstrated fear of falling Those fearful were more depressed and used a walking aid FoF was correlated to all functional measures Depression, walking-aid, slow gait speed, being African American related to being more fearful

PAGE 97

84Table A-1. Continued Li, et al., 2003 [227] Crosssectional study 256 Assessed with the Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale Assessed with the Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale Berg Balance Functional Reach Test Dynamic Gait Index for functional mobility IADLs Quality of Life via SF-12 FoF varied across diffe ring activities of the SAFFE 18% reported “high fear” Those with high fear more likely to report fear with activities of the SAFFE Fallers had a higher SAFFE score Difference in balance, functional mobility, IADLs, and QoL between those with high and low fear Those with higher fear engaged in fewer activities Murphy, et al., 2002 [187] Crosssectional study 1064 “Afraid of falling?” Those with FoF were asked “did the fear cause them to cut down on activities?” ADLs IADLs CESD 24% reported FoF 19% reported FoF and activity restriction Highest activity restriction seen in those over 80, female, white, poor health status, dizziness, 5 or more medications, visual impairment, two or more diseases Those with FoF and activity restriction were more likely to be 80 and over, female, 2 or more disease, slow timed physical performance, ADL disa bility, prior injurious fall, anxiety, and depressive symptoms Suzuki, et al., 2002 [226] Crosssectional study 135 “At the present time are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, or not fearful that you may fall?” Short Form 36 Health Survey measured health related quality of life and perceived changes in health status Females more likely to express FoF Older participants more likely to express FoF 63.7% were moderately or very fearful of falling Females: walking and bathing had significant relationship with FoF Majority of those who required assist with ADLs answered “moderately” or “very fearful” Those with increased FoF demonstrated decreased scoring on SF-36 subscales o Physical problems o Social functions o Physical function o General health perceptions Yardley and Smith, 2002 [186] Convenience sample form a pragmatic double-blind randomized controlled trial 224 at baseline and 166 at 6 months “In general, are you afraid of falling over?” Answered: not at all, a little, quite a bit, very much Consequence of Falling Scale (CoF) (validated by authors) o Assesses fall related fears of physical injury, long term functional incapacity, subjective anxiety, and social discomfort. Modified Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale Nearly half had fallen in previous year 57% reported FoF o 46% a little afraid o 11% more severe fear FoF related activity avoidance increased with age, female gender, and number of falls in the last year. Each increase of reported FoF was associated with an increased in activity avoidance and perceived negative falls consequences

PAGE 98

85 LIST OF REFERENCES 1 Stineman MG, Maislin G, Fiedler RC, Granger CV: A prediction model for functional recovery in stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 550-556. 2 O'Sullivan SB: Stroke; in O'Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ (eds): Physical rehabilitation: Assessment and treatm ent; ed 4th. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis Company, 2001, pp 519-582. 3 AHCPR: Clinical practice guidelines: Post -stroke rehabilitation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. 4 Han B, Haley WE: Family caregiving for patients with stroke. Review and analysis. Stroke 1999; 30: 1478-1485. 5 Lyons RA, Lo SV, Littlepage BN: Compara tive health status of patients with 11 common illnesses in Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994; 48: 388-390. 6 Fried LP, Ettinger WH, Lind B, Newman AB, Gardin J: Physical disability in older adults: a physiological approach. Cardiovascular Health Study Research Group. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 747-760. 7 Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R: Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med D ecis Making 2005; 25: 250-261. 8 Duncan P, Studenski S, Ri chards L, Gollub S, Lai SM, Reker D, Perera S, Yates J, Koch V, Rigler S, Johnson D: Rando mized Clinical Tria l of Therapeutic Exercise in Subacute Stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2173-2180. 9 Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ : Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26: 982-989. 10 Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M: Community ambulation after stroke: How im portant and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 234-239.

PAGE 99

86 11 Rittman M, Vogel B, Spring HJ, Boylstein C, Faircloth C, Chumbler NR: Culturally sensitive models of stroke recovery and caregiv ing after discharge home, in HSR&D, Nursing Research In itiative. North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System: Rehabilitation Ou tcomes Research Center: Gainesville, FL, 2000-2005. 12 Jette AM: Physical disablement concep ts for physical therapy research and practice. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 380-386. 13 ICF Introduction, 2003, July 4, 2004 http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cf m?myurl=introduction.html%20&mytitle=I ntroduction 14 Chang JT, Morton SC, Rubenstein LZ, Mojica WA, Maglione M, Suttorp MJ, Roth EA, Shekelle PG: Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 680-687. 15 Patla AE, Shumway-Cook A: Dimensions of mobility: defining the complexity and difficulty associated with commun ity mobility. J Aging Phys Activity 1999; 7: 7 19. 16 Fried LP, Bandeen-Roche K, Chaves PH, Johnson BA: Preclinical mobility disability predicts incident mobility disa bility in older women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M43-52. 17 Guralnik JM, LaCroix AZ, Abbott RD, Berkman LF, Satterfield S, Evans DA, Wallace RB: Maintaining mobility in late lif e. I. Demographic characteristics and chronic conditions. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 845-857. 18 Hirvensalo M, Rantanen T, Heikkine n E: Mobility difficulties and physical activity as predictors of mortality an d loss of independence in the communityliving older population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 493-498. 19 Daley MJ, Spinks WL: Exercise, mo bility and aging. Sports Med 2000; 29: 1-12. 20 Katz S, Branch LG, Branson MH, Papsid ero JA, Beck JC, Greer DS: Active life expectancy. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1218-1224. 21 Lennartsson C, Silverstein M: Does engagement with life enhance survival of elderly people in Sweden? The role of so cial and leisure activities. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001; 56: S335-342. 22 Fried LP, Guralnik JM: Disability in older adults: evidence regarding significance, etiol ogy, and risk. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 92-100.

PAGE 100

87 23 Spector WD, Katz S, Murphy JB, Fult on JP: The hierarchical relationship between activities of dail y living and instrumental ac tivities of daily living. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 481-489. 24 Kemper P: The use of formal and info rmal home care by the disabled elderly. Health Serv Res 1992; 27: 421-451. 25 Hellstrom Y, Hallberg IR: Perspectives of elderly people receiving home help on health, care and quality of life. Health Soc Care Community 2001; 9: 61-71. 26 Melzer D, Lan T-Y, Tom BDM, Deeg DJH, Guralnik JM: Variation in Thresholds for Reporting Mobility Disability Betw een National Population Subgroups and Studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004; 59: 1295-1303. 27 Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB: A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self -reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 1994; 49: M85-94. 28 Ensrud KE, Nevitt MC, Yunis C, Cauley JA, Seeley DG, Fox KM, Cummings SR: Correlates of impaired function in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42: 481-489. 29 Gill TM, Williams CS, Tinetti ME: Assessing risk for the onset of functional dependence among older adults: the role of physical performance. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 603-609. 30 Jette AM, Branch LG: The Framingham Disa bility Study: II. P hysical disability among the aging. Am J Public Health 1981; 71: 1211-1216. 31 Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, Studenski S, Berkman LF, Wallace RB: Lo wer extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, pred ictive models, and va lue of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M221-231. 32 Manton KG: A longitudinal study of func tional change and mortality in the United States. J Gerontol 1988; 43: S153-161. 33 Jylha M, Guralnik JM, Balfour J, Fr ied LP: Walking difficulty, walking speed, and age as predictors of self-rated health: The women' s health and aging study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M609-617. 34 Cress ME, Schechtman KB, Mulrow CD, Fiatarone MA, Gerety MB, Buchner DM: Relationship between physical perf ormance and self-perceived physical function. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 93-101.

PAGE 101

88 35 Richards C, Malouin F, W ood-Dauphinee S: Gait veloc ity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In: Craik RA, Oatis C (eds.), Gait Analysis: Theory and Applications. Mosby, St Louis, MO. 1995 : 355-364. 36 Imms FJ, Edholm OG: Studi es of gait and mobility in the elderly. Age Ageing 1981; 10: 147-156. 37 Friedman PJ, Richmond DE, Baskett JJ: A pr ospective trial of serial gait speed as a measure of rehabilitation in the elderly. Age Ageing 1988; 17: 227-235. 38 Friedman PJ, Baskett JJ, Richmond DE: C ognitive impairment and its relationship to gait rehabilitation in the elderly. N Z Med J 1989; 102: 603-606. 39 Richards C, Olney SJ: Hemiparetic gait fo llowing stroke. Part III: recovery and physical therapy. Gait Posture 1996; 4: 149-162. 40 Goldie PA, Matyas TA, Evans OM: Defi cit and change in gait velocity during rehabilitation after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1074-1082. 41 Studenski S, Perera S, Wallace D, Cha ndler JM, Duncan PW, Rooney E, Fox M, Guralnik JM: Physical performance measures in the clinical setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 314-322. 42 Maki B: Gait changes in ol der adults: predictors of fa lls or indicators of fear. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 1406. 43 Arfken CL, Lach HW, Birge SJ, Miller JP : The prevalence and correlates of fear of falling in elderly persons living in the community. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 565-570. 44 Cummings SR, Melton LJ: Epidemiology a nd outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 2002; 359: 1761-1767. 45 Hausdorff JM, Rios DA, Edelberg HK : Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-y ear prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1050-1056. 46 Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF: Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1701-1707. 47 Masud T, Morris RO: Epidemiology of falls. Age Ageing 2001; 30: 3-7. 48 Nevitt MC, Cummings SR, Hudes ES: Risk factors for injurious falls: a prospective study. J Gerontol 1991; 46: M164-170.

PAGE 102

89 49 Center for Disease Control and Preventi on: Falls among older adults: Summary of research findings, 2004, June 12, 2004 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pubres/toolkit/SummaryOfFalls.htm 50 Gregg EW, Pereira MA, Caspersen CJ: Physical activity, falls, and fractures among older adults: a review of the epid emiologic evidence. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 883-893. 51 O'Loughlin JL, Robitaille Y, Boivin JF, Su issa S: Incidence of and risk factors for falls and injurious falls among the comm unity-dwelling elderly. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 342-354. 52 American Geriatrics Society, British Ge riatrics Society, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. 2001. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J.Am.Geriatr.Soc. 2001; 49: 664-672. 53 Sterling DA, O'Connor JA, Bonadies J: Geri atric falls: injury severity is high and disproportionate to mechanism. J Trauma 2001; 50: 116-119. 54 Centers for Disease Control and Preventio n: Web-based injury statistics query and reporting system (WISQARS), 2003, June 12, 2004 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/ 55 Donald IP, Bulpitt CJ: The prognosis of fa lls in elderly people living at home. Age Ageing 1999; 28: 121-125. 56 King MB, Tinetti ME: Falls in community-dwelling older persons. J.Am.Geriatr.Soc. 1995; 43: 1146-1154. 57 Donald I, Bulpitt C: The prognosis of fa lls in elderly people living at home. Age Ageing 1999; 28: 121-125. 58 Cummings SR, Kelsey JL, Nevitt MC, O' Dowd KJ: Epidemiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Epidemiol Rev 1985; 7: 178-208. 59 Carter ND, Kannus P, Khan KM: Exercise in the prevention of falls in older people: a systematic literature review examining the rationale and the evidence. Sports Med. 2001; 31: 427-438. 60 Ross P: Risk factors for osteoporotic fr acture. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1998; 27: 289-301. 61 Nevitt MC, Cummings SR, Kidd S, Bl ack D: Risk factors for recurrent nonsyncopal falls. A prospective study. JAMA 1989; 261: 2663-2668.

PAGE 103

90 62 Sjogren H, Bjornstig U: Injuries among the elderly in the home environment. J Aging Health 1991; 3: 107-125. 63 Sattin RW, Lambert Huber DA, DeVito CA Rodriguez JG, Ros A, Bacchelli S, Stevens JA, Waxweiler RJ: The incidence of fall injury events among the elderly in a defined population. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 131: 1028-1037. 64 Sattin R: Falls among older persons: a pub lic health perspective. Annu Rev Public Health 1992; 13: 489-508. 65 Moreland JD, Richardson JA, Goldsmith CH, Clase CM: Muscle weakness and falls in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1121-1129. 66 Moreland J, Richardson J, Chan DH, O'Ne ill J, Bellissimo A, Grum RM, Shanks L: Evidence-based guidelines for the seconda ry prevention of falls in older adults. Gerontology 2003; 49: 93-116. 67 Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Roberts on MC, Lamb SE, Cumming RG, Rowe BH: Interventions for preventing falls in el derly people (Cochrane Review). In The Cohhrane Library,. Cochrane.Database.Syst.Rev. 2001 : CD000340. 68 American Geriatrics Society, British Ge riatrics Society, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. 2001. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J.Am.Geriatr.Soc.; 49: 664-672. 69 de Rekeneire N, Visser M, Peila R, Nevitt MC, Cauley JA, Tylavsky FA, Simonsick EM, Harris TB: Is a fall just a fa ll: correlates of falli ng in healthy older persons. The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 841-846. 70 Nevitt MC, Cummins SR, Kidd S, Black D: Risk factors for recurrent nonsyncopal falls. JAMA 1989; 261: 2663-2668. 71 Campbell A, Borrie MJ, Spears G: Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 year s and older. J Gerontol 1989; 44: M112M117. 72 Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M, Kova l J: The influence of falling, fear of falling, and balance confidence on prosthetic mobility and social activity among individuals with a lower extremity am putation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1238-1244. 73 Tinetti ME, Doucette J, Claus E, Maro ttoli R: Risk factors for serious injury during falls by older persons in th e community. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 12141221.

PAGE 104

91 74 Tinetti ME, Inouye SK, Gill TM, Doucette JT: Shared risk factors for falls, incontinence, and functiona l dependence. Unifying the approach to geriatric syndromes. JAMA 1995; 273: 1348-1353. 75 Turcu A, Toubin S, Mourey F, D'Athis P, Manckoundia P, Pfitzenmeyer P: Falls and Depression in Older People. Gerontology 2004; 50: 303-308. 76 Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds and NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Preventing falls and s ubsequent injury in older people. Effective Healthcare 1996; 2: 1-16. 77 Center for Disease Control and Prev ention: Injury f act book, 2001-2002, June 12, 2004 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/ ?15_falls_among_older_adults.htm 78 Yates JS, Lai SM, Duncan PW, Studenski S: Falls in community-dwelling stroke survivors: an accumulated impairments model. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002; 39: 385394. 79 Forster A, Young J: Incidence and consequences of falls due to stroke: a systematic inquiry. BMJ 1995; 311: 83-86. 80 Murray J, Young J, Forster A, Ashworth R: Developing a primary care-based stroke model: the prevalence of longer-t erm problems experienced by patients and carers. British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53: 803-807. 81 Byers V, Arrington M, Finstuen K: Predic tive risk factors associated with stroke patient falls in acute care se ttings. J Neurosci Nurs 1990; 22: 147-154. 82 Jorgensen L, Engstad T, Jacobsen BK: Higher incidence of falls in long-term stroke survivors than in population controls: depressive symptoms predict falls after stroke. Stroke 2002; 33: 542-547. 83 Mayo NE, Korner-Bitensky N, Kaizer F: Relationship between response time and falls among stroke patients undergoing physic al rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res 1990; 13: 47-55. 84 Teasell R, McRae M, Foley N, Bhardwaj A: The incidence and consequences of falls in stroke patients during inpatien t rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 329-333. 85 Tinetti ME, Liu WL, Claus EB: Predicto rs and prognosis of inability to get up after falls among elderly persons. JAMA 1993; 269: 65-70. 86 Overstall PW: Falls after strokes. BMJ 1995; 311: 74-75.

PAGE 105

92 87 Adkin AL, Frank JS, Jog MS: Fear of fa lling and postural control in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 496-502. 88 Rogers MW: Disorders of posture, balance, and gait in Parkinson's disease. Clin Geriatr Med 1996; 12: 825-845. 89 Stack E, Ashburn A: Fall events descri bed by people with Parkinson's disease: implications for clinical interviewing a nd the research agenda. Physiother Res Int 1999; 4: 190-200. 90 Tinetti ME, Williams TF, Mayewski R: Fa ll risk index for elderly patients based on number of chronic disabilities. Am J Med 1986; 80: 429-434. 91 Liu BA, Topper AK, Reeves RA, Gryfe C, Maki BE: Falls among older people: relationship to medication use and ort hostatic hypotension. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 1141-1145. 92 Jamison M, Neuberger GB, Miller PA: Correlates of falls and fear of falling among adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: 673-680. 93 Fessel KD, Nevitt MC: Correlates of fear of falling and activity limitation among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 1997; 10: 222-228. 94 Bootsma-van der Wiel A, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJM, van Exel E, Bloem BR, Westendorp RGJ: Common ch ronic diseases and general impairments as determinants of walking disability in the oldest-old populatio n. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 1405-1410. 95 Gunter KB, White KN, Hayes WC, Snow CM: Functional mobility discriminates nonfallers from one-time and frequent fa llers. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M672-M676. 96 Friedman SM, Munoz B, West SK, Rubin GS, Fried LP: Falls and fear of falling: Which comes first? A longitudinal pred iction model suggests strategies for primary and secondary preven tion. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50: 1329-1335. 97 Lord SR, Clark RD, Webster IW: Physiologi cal factors associated with falls in an elderly population. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 1194-1200. 98 Pollock AS, Durward BR, Rowe PJ, Paul JP: What is balance? Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 402-406. 99 Lee LW, Kerrigan DC: Identification of kinetic differences between fallers and nonfallers in the elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 78: 242-246.

PAGE 106

93 100 Robbins AS, Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR Schulman BL, Osterweil D, Fine G: Predictors of falls among elderly people. Results of two populationbased studies. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 1628-1633. 101 Studenski S, Duncan PW, Chandler J, Sa msa G, Prescott B, Hogue C, Bearon LB: Predicting falls: the role of mobility and nonphysical factors. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42: 297-302. 102 Lipsitz LA, Nakajima I, Gagnon M, Hirayama T, Connelly CM, Izumo H: Muscle strength and fall rates among residents of Japanese and American nursing homes: an International Cross-Cultural Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42: 953-959. 103 Luukinen H, Koski K, Laippala P, Kivela SL: Risk factors for recurrent falls in the elderly in long-term institut ional care. Public Health 1995; 109: 57-65. 104 Luukinen H, Koski K, Laippala P, Kivela SL: Predictors for recurrent falls among the home-dwelling elderly. Scand J Prim Health Care 1995; 13: 294-299. 105 Thapa PB, Gideon P, Fought RL, Ray WA: Psychotropic drugs and risk of recurrent falls in ambulatory nursing ho me residents. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 202-211. 106 Graafmans WC, Ooms ME, Hofstee HM, B ezemer PD, Bouter LM, Lips P: Falls in the elderly: a prospective study of risk factors and risk profiles. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143: 1129-1136. 107 Davis JW, Ross PD, Nevitt MC, Wasnich RD: Risk factors for falls and for serious injuries on falling among older Ja panese women in Hawaii. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 792-798. 108 Schwartz AV, Villa ML, Prill M, Kelsey JA, Galinus JA, Delay RR, Nevitt MC, Bloch DA, Marcus R, Kelsey JL: Falls in older Mexican-American women. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1371-1378. 109 Tromp AM, Pluijm SM, Smit JH, Deeg DJ, Bouter LM, Lips P: Fall-risk screening test: a prospective study on pr edictors for falls in community-dwelling elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 837-844. 110 Lamb SE, Ferrucci L, Volapto S, Fried LP, Guralnik JM: Risk factors for falling in home-dwelling older women with stroke The women's health and aging study. Stroke 2003; 34: 494-500. 111 Tutuarima JA, vanderMeulen JHP, deHaan RJ, vanStraten A, Limburg M: Risk factors for falls of hospitalized stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28: 297-301.

PAGE 107

94 112 Tinetti ME, Richman D, Powell L: Falls e fficacy as a measure of fear of falling. J Gerontol 1990; 45: 239-243. 113 Chandler J, Duncan PW, L S, Studens ki S: The fear of falling syndrome: Relationship to falls, physical performance and activities of daily living in frail older persons. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1996; 11: 1-10. 114 Delbaere K, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Willems T, Cambier D: Fear-related avoidance of activities, falls and physica l frailty. A prospective community-based cohort study. Age Ageing 2004 : afh106. 115 Walker JE, Howland J: Falls and fear of falling among elderly persons living in the community: occupational therapy interventions. Am J Occup Ther 1991; 45: 119-122. 116 Leipzig RM, Cumming RG, Tinetti ME: Drugs and falls in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis: I. Psychotropic drugs. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 30-39. 117 Leipzig RM, Cumming RG, Tinetti ME: Drugs and falls in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis: II. Cardiac and analgesic drugs. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 40-50. 118 Brauer SG, Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A: The interacting effects of cognitive demand and recovery of postu ral stability in balanceimpaired elderly persons. J.Gerontol.A Biol.S ci.Med.Sci. 2001; 56: M489-M496. 119 Melzer I, Benjuya N, Kaplanski J: Age -related changes of pos tural control: effect of cognitive tasks. Gerontology 2001; 47: 189-194. 120 Redfern MS, Muller ML, Jennings JR, Furman JM: Attentional dynamics in postural control during perturbations in young and older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002; 57: B298-B303. 121 Hauer K, Pfisterer M, Weber C, Wezl er N, Kliegel M, Oster P: Cognitive impairment decreases postural control duri ng dual tasks in geriatric patients with a history of severe falls. J Am Geriatar Soc 2003; 51: 1638-1644. 122 Jelicic M, Kempen GI: Cognitive func tion and fall-related fractures. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 171: 88-89. 123 Clague JE, Petrie PJ, Horan MA: Hypoca pnia and its relation to fear of falling. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1485-1488.

PAGE 108

95 124 Nourhashemi F, Andrieu S, Gillett e-Guyonnet S, Vellas B, Albarede JL, Grandjean H: Instrumental activities of daily living as a potential marker of frailty: A study of 7364 community-dwelling elderly women (the EPIDOS Study). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M448-453. 125 Baker SP, Harvey AH: Fall injuries in the elderly. Clin.Geriatr.Med. 1985; 1: 501-512. 126 Chu LW, Pei CK, Chiu A, Liu K, Chu MM, Wong S, Wong A: Risk factors for falls in hospitalized older medical patient s. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999; 54: M38-M43. 127 Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M: Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 896-903. 128 Whooley MA, Kip KE, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Nevitt MC, Browner WS: Depression, falls, and risk of fracture in older wo men. Study of osteoporotic fractures research group. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 484-490. 129 O'Brien K, Culham E, Pickles B: Bala nce and skeletal alignment in a group of elderly female fallers and nonfallers. J Gerontol 1997; 52a: b221-b226. 130 Fletcher PC, Hirdes JP: Risk factor s for serious falls among community-based seniors: Results from the National Popul ation Health Survey. Can J Aging 2002; 21: 103-116. 131 Gillespie ND, McMurdo ME: Falls in old age: inevitable or preventable? Scott Med J 1998; 43: 101-103. 132 Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Cumming R, Lamb SE, Rowe BH: Interventions for preventing falls in the elderly. Cochrane.Database.Syst.Rev. 2000 : CD000340. 133 Feder G, Cryer C, Donovan S, Carter Y: Guidelines for the prevention of falls in people over 65. The Guidelines' Development Group. BMJ 2000; 321: 10071011. 134 Pils K, Neumann F, Meisner W, Schano W, Vavrovsky G, Van der Cammen TJM: Predictors of falls in elderly peopl e during rehabilitation after hip fracture who is at risk of a second one? Zeitsc hrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie 2003; 36: 16-22. 135 Tromp AM, Smit JH, Deeg DJ, Bouter LM Lips P: Predictors for falls and fractures in the Longitudinal Aging St udy Amsterdam. J Bone Miner Res 1998; 13: 1932-1939.

PAGE 109

96 136 Murphy J, Isaacs B: The post-fall syndrome. A study of 36 elderly patients. Gerontology 1982; 28: 265-270. 137 Bhala RP, O'Donnell J, Thoppil E: Pt ophobia. Phobic fear of falling and its clinical management. Phys Ther 1982; 62: 187-190. 138 Vellas B, Cayla F, Bocquet H, de Pemille F, Albarede JL: Prospective study of restriction of activity in old people after falls. Age Ageing 1987; 16: 189-193. 139 Tinetti ME, Speechley M: Prevention of falls among the elderly. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 1055-1059. 140 Tinetti ME, Powell L: Fear of falling a nd low self-efficacy: a cause of dependence in elderly persons. J Gerontol 1993; 48 Spec No: 35-38. 141 Tinetti ME, Williams CS: The effect of falls and fall injuries on functioning in community-dwelling older persons. J Gerontol 1998; 53: M112-M119. 142 Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Topper AK: Fear of falling and postural performance in the elderly. J Gerontol 1991; 46: M123-131. 143 Cumming RG, Salkeld G, Thomas M, Sz onyi G: Prospective study of the impact of fear of falling on activ ities of daily living, SF-36 scores, and nursing home admission. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M299-M305. 144 Vellas B, Wayne S, Romero L, Baumga rtner R, Garry P: Fear of falling and restriction of mobility in el derly fallers. Age Ageing 1997; 26: 189-193. 145 Salva A, Bolibar I, Pera G, Arias C: Incidence and conseque nces of falls among elderly people living in the co mmunity. Med Clin (Barc) 2004; 122: 172-176. 146 Maki B, Holliday P, Topper AK: Fear of falling and postual performance in the elderly. J Gerontol Med Sci 1991; 46: M140-147. 147 Tinetti ME, Mendes de Leon CF, Doucette JT, Baker DI: Fear of falling and fallrelated efficacy in relationship to f unctioning among community-living elders. J Gerontol 1994; 49: M140-M147. 148 Howland J, Lachman ME, Peterson EW, Cote J, Kasten L, Jette A: Covariates of fear of falling and associated activ ity curtailment. Gerontologist 1998; 38: 549555. 149 Howland J, Peterson EW, Levin WC, Frie d L, Pordon D, Bak S: Fear of falling among the community-dwelling elderly. J Aging Health 1993; 5: 229-243.

PAGE 110

97 150 Myers AM, Powell LE, Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Brawley LR, Sherk W: Psychological indicators of balance c onfidence: Relationship to actual and perceived abilities. J Gerontol 1996; 51a: m37-m43. 151 Lachman ME, Howland J, Tennstedt S, Jette A, Assmann S, Peterson EW: Fear of falling and activity restriction: the survey of activities and fear of falling in the elderly (SAFE). J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998; 53: P43-50. 152 Lawrence RH, Tennstedt SL, Kasten LE, Sh ih J, Howland J, Jette AM: Intensity and correlates of fear of falling and hu rting oneself in the next year: baseline findings from a Roybal Center fear of falling intervention. J Aging Health 1998; 10: 267-286. 153 Lach HW: Fear of falling: An emerging public health problem. GenerationsJournal of the American Society on Aging 2002; 26: 33-37. 154 Stolze H, Klebe S, Zechlin C, Baecker C, Friege L, Deuschl G: Falls in frequent neurological diseases--prevalence, risk factors and aetiol ogy. J Neurol 2004; 251: 79-84. 155 Maki B, Holliday P, Topper AK: Fear of falling and postural performance in the elderly. J Gerontol Med Sci 1991; 46: M140-147. 156 McAuley E, Mihalko SL, Rosengren K: Self-efficacy and balance correlates of fear of falling in the elderly. J Aging Phys Activity 1997; 5: 329-340. 157 Burker EJ, Wong H, Sloane PD, Mattingly D, Preisser J, Mitchell CM: Predictors of fear of falling in dizzy and nondizzy elderly. Psychol Aging 1995; 10: 104110. 158 Murphy SL, Dubin JA, Gill TM: The development of fear of falling among community-living older women: predisposing factors and subsequent fall events. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003; 58: M943-947. 159 American Heart Association: Heart dis ease and stroke statistics 2003 update. Dallas, TX, 2003. 160 O' Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ: Physical Re habilitation Assessment and Treatment. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis Company, 2001. 161 Bonita R: Epidemiology of stroke. Lancet 1992; 339: 342-344. 162 Peltonen M, Asplund K: Age-period-cohort effects on stroke mo rtality in Sweden 1969-1993 and forecasts up to the year 2003. Stroke 1996; 27: 1981-1985.

PAGE 111

98 163 Reker DM, Hamilton BB, Duncan PW, Ye h SC, Rosen A: Stroke: who's counting what? J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38: 281-289. 164 Hoffer MM, Feiwell E, Perry R, Perry J, Bonnett C: Functional ambulation in patients with myelomeningocele. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973; 55: 137-148. 165 Perry J: Gait analysis: normal and pa thological function. Thorofare, NJ, SLACK Inc, 1992. 166 Davenport RJ, Dennis MS, Wellwood I, Wa rlow CP: Complications after acute stroke. Stroke 1996; 27: 415-420. 167 Langhorne P, Stott DJ, Robertson L, MacDona ld J, Jones L, McAlpine C, Dick F, Taylor GS, Murray G: Medical complicat ions after stroke : A multicenter study. Stroke 2000; 31: 1223-1229. 168 Nyberg L, Gustafson Y: Patient falls in stroke rehabilitation a challenge to rehabilitation stra tegies. Stroke 1995; 26: 838-842. 169 Ugur C, Gucuyener D, Uzuner N, Ozkan S, Ozdemir G: Characteristics of falling in patients with stroke. Journal of Ne urology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2000; 69: 649-651. 170 Hyndman D, Ashburn A, Stack E: Fall ev ents among people with stroke living in the community: Circumstances of falls and characteristics of fallers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 165-170. 171 Ramnemark A, Nyberg L, Borssen B, Olsson T, Gustafson Y: Fractures after stroke. Osteoporos Int 1998; 8: 92-95. 172 Ramnemark A, Nilsson M, Borssen B, Gustafson Y: Stroke, a major and increasing risk factor for femo ral neck fracture. Stroke 2000; 31: 1572-1577. 173 Hellstrom K, Lindmark B: Fear of falling in patients with stroke: a reliability study. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 509-517. 174 Hellstrom K, Lindmark B, Fugl-Meyer A: The Falls-Efficacy Scale, Swedish version: does it reflect clinically meaningf ul changes after stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 471-481. 175 Botner E, Miller W, Eng J: Measurem ent properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale among individuals with stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 156-163. 176 Bandura A: Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1986.

PAGE 112

99 177 Myers A, Fletcher PC, AH M, Sherk W: Discriminative and evaluative properties for the Activities-specific Balance Confid ence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med 1998; 53: M287-M294. 178 Powell LE, Myers AM: The Activities-spec ific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995; 50A: M28-M34. 179 Gill TM, Desai MM, Gahbauer EA, Holfor d TR, Williams CS: Restricted activity among community-living older persons: incidence, precip itants, and health care utilization. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 313-321. 180 Gill TM, Allore HG, Holford TR, Guo Z: Hospitalization, rest ricted activity, and the development of disability among older persons. JAMA 2004; 292: 2115-2124. 181 Wagner EH, LaCroix AZ, Grothaus L, Le veille SG, Hecht JA, Artz K, Odle K, Buchner DM: Preventing disability and fa lls in older adults : a population-based randomized trial. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1800-1806. 182 Leveille SG, Wagner EH, Davis C, Grotha us L, Wallace J, LoGerfo M, Kent D: Preventing disability and managing chr onic illness in frail older adults: a randomized trial of a community-based partnership with primary care. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998; 46: 1191-1198. 183 Reuben DB, Frank JC, Hirsch SH, McGuigan KA, Maly RC: A randomized clinical trial of outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment coupled with an intervention to increase adherence to recommendations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 269-276. 184 Potter J, Evans A, Duncan G: Gait speed and activities of da ily living function in geriatric patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76: 997-999. 185 Stel VS, Smit JH, Pluijm SMF, Lips P: Consequences of falling in older men and women and risk factors for health servi ce use and functional decline. Age Ageing 2004; 33: 58-65. 186 Yardley L, Smith H: A prospective st udy of the relationship between feared consequences of falling and avoidance of activity in community-living older people. Gerontologist 2002; 42: 17-23. 187 Murphy SL, Williams CS, Gill TM: Characteris tics associated with fear of falling and activity restriction in communityliving older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 516-520.

PAGE 113

100 188 Grisso JA, Schwarz DF, Wolfson V, Pola nsky M, LaPann K: The impact of falls in an inner-city elderly African-Ameri can population. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40: 673-678. 189 Petrella RJ, Payne M, Myers A, Overe nd T, Chesworth B: Physical function and fear of falling after hip fracture rehabilitation in the elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 154-160. 190 Franzoni S, Rozzini R, Boffelli S, Fris oni GB, Trabucchi M: Fear of falling in nursing home patients. Gerontology 1994; 40: 38-44. 191 Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, Gruber W: Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwe lling older adults. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 812-819. 192 McKee KJ, Orbell S, Radley KA: Predicti ng perceived recovere d activity in older people after a fall. Di sabil Rehabil 1999; 21: 555-562. 193 Legters K: Fear of falling. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 264-272. 194 Li FZ, McAuley E, Fisher KJ, Harmer P, Chaumeton N, Wilson NL: Self-efficacy as a mediator between fear of falling and functional ability in the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health 2002; 14: 452-466. 195 Kelly JF, Winograd CH: A functional approa ch to stroke management in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985; 33: 48-60. 196 Silliman RA, Fletcher RH, Earp JL, Wagner EH: Families of elderly stroke patients. Effects of home care. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 643-648. 197 Tompkins CA, Schulz R, Rau MT: Post -stroke depression in primary support persons: predicting those at risk. Journa l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1988; 56: 502-508. 198 Stein PN, Gordon WA, Hibbard MR, Sliwin ski MJ: An examination of depression in the spouses of stroke patie nts. Rehabilitation Psychology 1992; 37: 121-130. 199 Andersen G, Vestergaard K, Lauritzen L: Effective treatment of poststroke depression with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram. Stroke 1994; 25: 1099-1104. 200 King RB, Carlson CE, Shade-Zeldow Y, Bares KK, Roth EJ, Heinemann AW: Transition to home care after stroke: depression, physical health, and adaptive processes in support persons. Resear ch in Nursing and Health 2001; 24: 307-323.

PAGE 114

101 201 Morimoto T, Schreiner AS, Asano H: Ca regiver burden and health-related quality of life among Japanese stroke caregivers. Age and Ageing 2003; 32: 218-223. 202 Hartke RJ, King RB: Telephone group inte rvention for older stroke caregivers. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003; 9: 65-81. 203 Carnwath TC, Johnson DA: Psychiatric mo rbidity among spouses of patients with stroke. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 1987; 294: 409-411. 204 Dennis M, O'Rourke S, Lewis S, Sharpe M, Warlow C: A quantitative study of the emotional outcome of people caring for stroke survivors. Stroke 1998; 29: 1867-1872. 205 Kotila M, Numminen H, Waltimo O, Kaste M: Depression after stroke: results of the FINNSTROKE Study. Stroke 1998; 29: 368-372. 206 Scholte op Reimer WJ, de Haan RJ, R ijnders PT, Limburg M, van den Bos GA: The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term str oke survivors. Stroke 1998; 29: 1605-1611. 207 Bugge C, Alexander H, Hagen S: Stroke patients' informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service fact ors that affect caregi ver strain. Stroke 1999; 30: 15171523. 208 Bakas T, Burgener SC: Predictors of emotional distress, general health, and caregiving outcomes in family caregivers of stroke survivors. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2002; 9: 34-45. 209 van den Heuvel ET, de Witte LP, Schure LM, Sanderman R, Meyboom-de Jong B: Risk factors for burn-out in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 669-677. 210 Smith MT, Baer GD: Achievement of si mple mobility milestones after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 442-447. 211 Lord SE, Rochester L: Measurement of community ambulation after stroke: current status and future developments. Stroke 2005; 36: 1457-1461. 212 Kalra L, Crome P: The role of prognostic scores in targeting stroke rehabilitation in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41: 396-400. 213 Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB: The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 127-132.

PAGE 115

102 214 Mahoney F, Barthel D: Functional Evalua tion: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965; 14: 61-65. 215 Lawton MP, Brody EM: Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of da ily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179-186. 216 Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ: The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30: 2131-2140. 217 Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF36). I. Conceptual framework a nd item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483. 218 Eng JJ, Chu KS, Dawson AS, Kim CM, Hepburn KE: Functional walk tests in individuals with stroke: relation to pe rceived exertion and myocardial exertion. Stroke 2002; 33: 756-761. 219 Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S: Rasch analysis of a new strokespecific outcome scale: the stroke imp act scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 950-963. 220 Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S: Persisting conse quences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 1840-1844. 221 Duncan PW, Lai SM, Bode RK, Perera S, DeRosa J: Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physica l function. Neurology 2003; 60: 291-296. 222 Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow J, Rich ardson E, Warburton FG, Burney PG: Patterns of acute stroke care in three di stricts of southern England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993; 47: 144-148. 223 Taub NA, Wolfe CD, Richardson E, Burney PG: Predicting the disability of firsttime stroke sufferers at 1 year. 12-mont h follow-up of a population-based cohort in southeast England. Stroke 1994; 25: 352-357. 224 Wilkinson PR, Wolfe CD, Warburton FG, Rudd AG, Howard RS, Ross-Russell RW, Beech RR: A long-term follow-up of stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28: 507512. 225 Brouwer B, Musselman K, Culham E: P hysical function and health status among seniors with and without a f ear of falling. Gerontology 2004; 50: 135-141. 226 Suzuki M, Ohyama N, Yamada K, Kanamo ri M: The relationship between fear of falling, activities of daily living and quality of lif e among elderly individuals. Nurs Health Sci 2002; 4: 155-161.

PAGE 116

103 227 Li FZ, Fisher KJ, Harmer P, McAuley E, Wilson NL: Fear of falling in elderly persons: Association with falls, functional ab ility, and quality of life. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Ps ychological Sciences and Social Sciences 2003; 58: P283-P290. 228 Kressig RW, Wolf SL, Sattin RW, O'Gra dy M, Greenspan A, Curns A, Kutner M: Associations of demographi c, functional, and behavioral characteristics with activity-related fear of falling among older adults tr ansitioning to frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 1456-1462. 229 Fletcher PC, Hirdes JP: Restriction in activity associated with fear of falling among community-based seniors using home care services. Age Ageing 2004; 33: 273-279. 230 Bruce DG, Devine A, Prince RL: Recreati onal physical activity levels in healthy older women: The importance of fear of falling. J Am Geriatar Soc 2002; 50: 8489. 231 Patton M: Qualitative Analysis and Interp retation; in Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA Sage Publications, 1990, pp 371-459. 232 QRS International, Nudist software N-6, version 6, Sydney, Australia. 2003 233 Folstein MF, Robins LN, Helzer JE: The Mini-Mental State Examination. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983; 40: 812. 234 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patien ts for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189-198. 235 Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC: Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 133-138. 236 Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fied ler RC: The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative re view. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-1232. 237 Wade DT, Legh-Smith J, Langton Hewer R: Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using th e Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med 1985; 7: 176-181. 238 Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lu m O, Huang V, Adey M, Leirer VO: Development and validation of a geri atric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 1982; 17: 37-49.

PAGE 117

104 239 Antonovsky A: The "sense of coherence" concept; in Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987, pp 14-32. 240 Gallagher TJ, Wagenfeld MO, Baro F, H aepers K: Sense of coherence, coping and caregiver role overload. Soci al Science in Medicine 1994; 39: 1615-1622. 241 Myers A, Powell L, Maki B, Holliday P, Brawley L, Sherk W: Pschological indicators of balance confidence: relations hip to actual and pe rceived abilities. J Gerontol 1996; 51: 37-43.

PAGE 118

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Arlene Ann Schmid was born in Buffalo, New York, in December 1974. She was raised in the Buffalo area and completed a dual bachelor’s and master’s degree in occupational therapy from D’Youville College in 1997. Arlene worked for five years on the island of Oahu in Hawaii as a therapist in a variety of clinical settings. She entered the University of Florida rehabilitation science doctoral program in January 2002. During her doctoral career, she was awarded a prestigi ous VA Pre-doctoral Health Rehabilitation Research Fellowship to fund her dissertation research. Arlene plan s to continue her research at the Indiana University Occupati onal Therapy Department and the Indianapolis Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center. She plans to comp lete research within the aging population, particularly looking at mob ility issues and health promotion. Arlene enjoys artwork, reading, exercise, being outside, spending time with her family and friends, and playing with her two dogs.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011389/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Post-Stroke Mobility on Activity and Participation
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011389:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011389/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Post-Stroke Mobility on Activity and Participation
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011389:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












IMPACT OF POST-STROKE MOBILITY ON ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPATION


By

ARLENE ANN SCHMID


















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Arlene Ann Schmid

































This dissertation is dedicated in the memory of my father, Albert R. Schmid.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have gotten me to this phase of my life. I thank my parents and sister

for unending support and love, for always telling me that I could be successful. I thank

my mother for teaching me that I could always be more, and do more.

I thank Dr. Pamela Duncan for reminding me that I could always be more and do

more everyday. I would never be here without her support and dedication to my future.

I also thank Dr. Maude Rittman for continuous encouragement and assistance, and

wonderful everyday conversation that got me through this process. The rest of my

committee, Dr. Lorie Richards and Michael Marsiske, have provided wonderful guidance

for many of the years that I have been pursuing my graduate degree, but have been

outstanding as a dissertation committee.

Friendship has been a wonderful requirement of graduate school, I think we would

not survive without each other. I am honored to have known so many extraordinary

people who will do so many great things. I am especially grateful for the friendship of

Jessica, Roxanna, Rick, Ellen, Diane, Cesar, Jordan (thanks for the dog sitting too!!) and

my neighbors, Nate and Gretchen. Michelle deserves her own sentence. She has been a

great support, and always seemed to know what to do, plus those car rides to Buffalo

created some type of weird bond (and I knew she would complain if she did not have

your own line!!!). Megan (Meggy !!) has been an outstanding friend, and has provided

great information regarding the Midwest!! And Marieke! My IL! She is the "strangest









person I ever met". She is a great friend and has been so good to me. I thank her for being

fabulous! Thank you all for everything, I am glad we have crossed paths...

The 'boys', the 'PhDemons', how will I ever get through this new phase of my life

without them? From day one we have depended on each other, and have grown to

become something we never knew was possible. Michael and Dennis have provided

wonderful friendship and have made this time of life so much better. Thanks to the two of

them, I have many more happy memories and have had much more fun (as measured by

the fun-o'meter) than most on their way out of graduate school. But more importantly,

they have both provided guidance, and I hope I have also assisted them along this long

long road.

And finally to 'BZ', we have made it through this. I now have no question that we

can do anything, as long as we do it together. He is the sweetest and most wonderful

person and I am very lucky to be spending the rest of my life with him, Kalo, and Maile. I

thank him for always reminding me that I was capable of taking on the world.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................ ......... .. .. .. .......... ....... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ xi

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. .. ...... .......... .......... xii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Theoretical M models ............................................... ...... ........................ ........ .3
The World Health Organization Model: International Classification of
Functioning, Disability, and Health .............. ............................................ 3
Theoretical Fram ew ork ............................................................................. 6
R research Q uestions........... .................................................................... ........ .... 7

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ ......................... 9

Introduction ................................................................. ...............
Mobility in the Community Dwelling Elderly...........................................................10
G ait V velocity ................................................................. .. ......................... 11
Gait velocity as an outcome measure.................................... ..................11
Gait velocity and other aspects of mobility...............................................12
F a lls ........................................ ...... .......... ............ ................ 1 2
Incidence and consequences of falls in the community dwelling elderly ....12
M ultifactorial risk factors................................... .............................. ...... 13
N um ber of risk factors...................... .................... ......... .......... ............... 14
Fear of falling as a risk factor and consequence of falls ............................15
F ear of F allin g ......................................... ....... ..... .. ........ ............... 15
Incidence of fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly.................. 16
Fear of falling risk factors ...........................................................17
M ability in the Post-Stroke Population ........................................... .....................18
Stroke and Mobility Impairment .................. ..................... ...............18
Stroke .................. ...... .. ......... ...... ..................... ....... 18
G ait V elocity A after Stroke........................................................ ............... 19
Falls A after Stroke ........................................ .. .. .... ........ ..... .... 22









Stroke as a risk factor for falls .......................................... ............... 23
P ost-stroke hip fractures...................................... ........................... ........ 24
Fear of Falling A after Stroke ........................................ .......................... 24
Post-stroke balance confidence ...................................................... 24
Post-stroke fear of falling assessments.................................................25
Post-stroke fear of falling ............................. ........... .................. 26
A activity and P participation ................................................................ ............... ...26
Restriction of Activity and Participation............... ...... ......................... 26
Gait Speed, Activity, and Participation .................................... ............... 27
Falls, Activity, and Participation ................................ ...............29
Fear of Falling, Activity, and Participation.......................... ............... 30
C areg iv ers ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. .................................................3 1
Stroke and Caregiving ................... ...... ........ .. .. .... ..... .. ........ .... 31
Mobility Disability and Caregiving.................... ............. ..............32
C aregiver D expression ............................................. ................ ............. 33
Caregiver Burden ....................... ....... ............................... .33
Sum m ary of the Literature Review .............. ................................... ................34

3 THE IMPACT OF POST-STROKE GAIT VELOCITY CHANGES ON
ACTIVITY AND PARTICIATION .................................................. .................. 35

Introdu action ...................................... ................................................. 3 5
M eth o d s ...................................................................3 7
D design ...................................................................................................... ....... 37
P articip an ts ................................................................ 3 8
O utcom e M measures .................................. ............. ...... ......... 39
G ait v elo city ................................................. ................ 3 9
Activity and participation..................... ...... ........................... 40
Statistical A analysis .......................................... .. .. .... .... ..... ..... .. 4 1
R e su lts ...........................................................................................4 1
D isc u ssio n ............................................................................................................. 4 4

4 FEAR OF FALLING AFTER STROKE ..................................................48

In tro du ctio n ...................................... ................................................ 4 8
M eth o d s ..................................................................5 0
D e sig n .......................................................................................5 0
Sam ple .............................................................................................................50
D ata Collection ................................................................ .. ... ............ 51
O utcom e M measures ...........................................................53
Functional status................................................... 54
Cognitive status ................................................................ .. .............54
D expression ............................... ........ .......................................... 54
Caregiver demographics, burden, and coping ...........................................55
A analysis of Q uantitative D ata ....................................................... 55
R e su lts ...............................................................................................5 6
D description of Sam ple ................................................................................... 56









Relationships Between Fear of falling, Functional Status, and Depression........56
The Experience of Fear of Falling Post-Stroke ....................................... 60
Onset of falling with the stroke event ............. ........................................61
Experiencing the changed body ....................................... ............... 62
A pervasive fear of the unpredictable .......................................................64
Falls as an everyday life experience.................................. ............... 66
Strategies for managing fear of falling ............. .......................................66
D iscu ssion ............................................................................................................ 7 0
Characterization of Fear of Falling.................................. ........................ 71
L im itatio n s ..................................................................................................... 7 4
Future R research ................................................... .. .......... .............. .. 74

5 C O N C L U SIO N ......... ......................................................................... ........ .. ..... .. 77

APPENDIX

EVIDENCE BASED TABLE FOR FEAR OF FALLING AND ACTIVITY
R E ST R IC T IO N ................... .................... ................................... .......... .. .... 1

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ....................................................................... ... ...................85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 105
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

2-1. M ultifactorial risk factors for falls ........................................ ....................... 14

2-2. Six am bulation categories ............................................... ............................. 20

2-3. G ait Speed C lassification .............................................................. .....................20

2-4 C om m unity am bulation ......................................... .............................................22

3-1. Community ambulation and gait speed...........................................................36

3-2. Baseline characteristics for participation with initial gait speed < 0.8 m/s
(success = advancing to a higher ambulation classification) .................................42

3-3. Proportions of success/fail for transitioning to next ambulation classification
between baseline and 3 m months ........ ............................................. ............... 43

3-4. Three month outcomes for entire sample...... ....................... ...........43

3-5. Three month outcomes stratified by gait speed.............. ..... .................44

4-1. Coding structure for qualitative interviews ............... .............. .....................53

4-2. Baseline data for those with and without fear of falling (FoF) ..............................56

4-3. Baseline/discharge data for those discussing fear of falling at one and six months 57

4-4. Baseline/discharge data and outcome measures for those with and without fear
of falling ......... ..... ............. ..................................... ............................58

4-5. Scoring of FAI and FIM items for those with and without fear of falling ..............59

4-6. Frequency counts of fear of falling at one and six months .................................59

4-7. Proportions of those with and without fear of falling and chi square ...................59

4-8. Comparison of caregivers for participants with and without fear of falling ............60









4-9. Content analysis frequencies (derived from 55 qualitative interviews) .................61

A-1. Fear of falling and activity restriction .................................... ......... ............... 82
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figurege

1-1. The ICIDH-2 M odel of Disablement ........ .............................. .. ............... 4

1-2. Conceptual M odel ...................... .... ............................................. ....















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

IMPACT OF POST-STROKE MOBILITY ON ACTIVITY AND
PARTICIPATION


By

Arlene Ann Schmid

August 2005

Chair: Pamela W. Duncan
Major Department: Rehabilitation Science

Post-stroke individuals often experience residual mobility impairments, reflected in

decreased gait speed, increased falls, and the possible development of fear of falling. This

research utilized two secondary analyses to explore the impact of post-stroke gait velocity

and fear of falling on activity and participation.

The first study examined clinically meaningful changes in gait velocity in 64 post-

stroke individuals. Velocity was measured at baseline and three months and was placed

into a three tier ambulation classification. T-tests determined a difference in functional

ability (activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs),

mobility, and social participation) between those who did and did not successfully

advance to the next ambulation classification. After stratifying by baseline gait velocity

and controlling for age, those most severely impaired at baseline, and who advanced

classifications, demonstrated significant differences in all measured functional abilities.

In comparison, those moderately impaired only demonstrated significant differences in









social participation. Thus, clinically meaningful changes in gait speed were related to

highly significant changes in all domains, particularly for participation.

The secondary objective was to characterize post-stroke fear of falling. Review of

qualitative interviews identified those with fear of falling. T-tests compared ADLs,

IADLs, and depression measures between those with and without fear. No significant

differences were found for the outcome measures; however, those with detected fear

exhibited slightly worse scores on all measures. Content analysis of the interviews

revealed five elements used to characterize post-stroke fear of falling: (1) onset of falling

with stroke event, (2) experiencing the changed body, (3) a pervasive fear of the

unpredictable, (4) falls as an everyday life experience, and (5) the strategies for managing

fear of falling. Such experiences and strategies became very individualized and imply the

need for future research regarding assessment and intervention of post-stroke fear of

falling.

Collectively, these results indicate that many post-stoke individuals live in the

community, but still demonstrate residual mobility deficits. Decreased gait velocity and

developed fear of falling were related to activity restriction and modification, possibly

leading to further losses of independence, placing individuals at risk for decreased quality

of life and life satisfaction.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The American Heart Association reports stroke to be a common diagnosis

occurring in 700,000 people annually. Stroke is the primary cause of disability and the

third leading cause of death for those over 65 [1-4]. Stroke is also classified as the most

disabling chronic disease and the cumulative consequences are often staggering for

individuals, families, and society [5, 6]. Residual motor, sensory, and visual post-stroke

deficits make mobility impairments common. Changes in gait velocity, falls, and fear of

falling are common post-stroke mobility impairments. All may contribute to decreased

performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living

(IADLs), social participation, and overall declines in quality of life.

The purpose of this dissertation is to report findings from two studies. Both studies

are secondary analyses of larger studies. The goal of the first study was to evaluate a

clinically meaningful change in post-stroke gait speed and its impact on activity and

participation levels post-stroke. A clinically meaningful change is important to determine

as it is related to patient-valued benefits. Barrett et al. discusses the need to merge

patient-oriented and evidence-based frameworks together by observing an "important

difference" [7]. Such clinical significance can be seen by examining the sufficiently

important difference (SID), the smallest amount of patient-valued benefit required from

an intervention to justify associated costs, risks, and other harms. We observed data on

post-stroke gait speed changes and the existing relationship with ADLs, IADLs, and

social participation to examine a clinically meaningful change in gait velocity.









Data for this aspect of the study were derived from a prospective, randomized,

controlled, single-blind, clinical intervention trial [8]. An analysis of three-month post-

stroke data related to gait speed was completed. Participants were stratified by changes in

gait speed. Comparisons were completed to determine significant differences in ADL,

IADL, and social participation scores between those who succeeded and those who failed

to increase gait speed at three months post-stroke. Literature supports an association

between gait speed and mobility [9, 10]. However, limited research currently exists to

support the relationship between changes in gait speed and the resultant difference in

performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation.

The second study was completed to identify and describe the characterizations of

fear of falling as reported by participants who have been discharged home following a

stroke. We used qualitative and quantitative data from a longitudinal multi-site cohort

study exploring stroke recovery and caregiving at one and six months post discharge

following acute stroke [11 ]. We examined the relationship between fear of falling and

demographic variables, depression, and the ability to perform ADLs and IADLs.

Additionally, caregiver depression and burden associated with fear of falling was

explored. Qualitative interviews were semi-structured around issues related to the post-

stroke experience but did not specifically ask about fear of falling. Therefore, the

interviews were examined to identify participants who discussed characteristics related to

fear of falling. The data specific to those with an identified fear were re-coded in QSR N-

6 (qualitative data computer software). Content analysis was used to analyze the

qualitative data and define characterizations of fear of falling across 6 months after

discharge home post acute stroke. Currently, there is a paucity of information related to









the development of fear of falling after stroke. This study provides initial exploration into

this complex syndrome and will supply preliminary data for future research regarding

post-stroke fear of falling and the residual influence it has on activities and participation.

Cumulatively, these research projects provide researchers and clinicians with

valuable information regarding performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation

related to both gait speed and fear of falling after stroke. The impact of post-stroke gait

speed on ADLs and IADLs is not well researched and this study contributes critical

information. This research is the first study to examine fear of falling in a stroke

population with longitudinal data that are both quantitative and qualitative. Results from

the study indicates the need for development of a future index related to fear of falling in

the population, and, more importantly, interventions to reduce both falls and manage fear

of falling in the post-stroke population. These studies provide a foundation for future

research related to post-stroke mobility and activities and participation.

Theoretical Models

Two theoretical models have guided this research. The International Classification

of Functioning, Disability, and Health was used to explain the fundamental relationships

between post-stroke mobility and ADLs, IADLs, and participation (see Figure 1-1). An

additional conceptual model was specifically proposed for these research study questions.

It was developed after a review and synthesis of the literature specific to gait velocity and

fear of falling (see Figure 1-2).

The World Health Organization Model: International Classification of Functioning,
Disability, and Health

Various models of disablement have been developed and explored over the years.

Because rehabilitation strives to reverse what was previously known as the "disabling"










process, proactive alterations have occurred in the theoretical models. Therefore they are

now termed "enablement models", and represent models of health and ability. The

International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) is the model

most frequently used in rehabilitation sciences and was proposed by the World Health

Organization (WHO) [12, 13].

The ICF has recently undergone revisions to better incorporate the concepts of

health and ability and to replace terms such as impairment, disability, and handicap to

allow for a more positive framework and classification system [13]. The ICF provides a

framework for the analysis of health conditions, body structure, body functions, activity

and participation, and environmental and personal factors [12]. There are two parts of the

ICF; the first deals with functioning and disability and is derived of the components of

body structure, body functions, activity, and participation. The second part includes the

components of contextual factors and includes environmental and personal factors. See

Figure 1-1.

Health Condition
(disorder/disease)




Body Structure & Body
Functions Activities Participation




Environmental Factors Personal Factors


Figure 1-1. The ICIDH-2 Model of Disablement

Body structures are the anatomical parts of the body and include organs, limbs, and

their components. Body functions are the physiological or psychological functions of









body systems. Body function and structure impairments are related to significant

deviation or loss.

The activities and participation component collectively covers the complete range

of individual and societal functioning and disability. The model captures the major

actions of all people, regardless of culture or lifespan. Activity is the execution of a task

or action that is completed by an individual in a uniform environment. Activity

limitations are difficulties a person may have in executing activities. Activity includes

self-care, mobility, learning and applying new knowledge, general tasks and demands,

and communication. Participation is the involvement in a life situation in an individual's

current environment. Restrictions in participation are problems a person may experience

in involvement in life situations. Participation includes domestic life, interpersonal

interactions and involvement in relationships, major life areas, and community, social,

and civic life. Activities and participation have two qualifiers within the model. Capacity

is the completion of an item in a neutral or standard environment and focuses on how an

individual actually completes the task. Performance is related to completing the same

item during daily life, at home and in the environment. Capacity limitations indicate the

discordance between capacities of people with and without health related condition.

Performance limitations indicate a need for intervention at the environmental level.

Environmental and personal factors include external features of the physical, social,

and attitudinal environment in which people live and conduct their lives. Products and

technology, natural environments, human-made changes to the environment, support and

relationships, attitudes, and services, systems, and policies are all aspects of

environmental and personal factors.









Theoretical Framework

Substantive reviews of the literature were completed. The literature pertaining to

post-stroke mobility, gait speed, falls, and fear of falling were incorporated into the ICF

model (see Figure 1-2). It was used to guide the research questions and analyses for these

studies.

In this study, the general health condition was "stroke." The type of stroke and

severity of stroke are important aspects that may impact post-stroke mobility. Stroke

related body function and body structure included sensory, cognitive, and motor

impairments. Environmental factors included caregiver depression, burden, and coping.

Personal factors included age, race, and cognition. These stroke related impairments and

personal factors might be related to activity limitations; such as difficulties completing

ADLs and IADLs, including walking, stair climbing, dressing, bathing, toileting, etc.

Mobility is a construct of ADLs and is therefore considered an aspect of activity. Gait

speed and fear of falling are each aspects of post-stroke mobility, and are therefore

considered as activity. It is thought that losses in gait speed and the development of fear

of falling adversely impact ADLs, IADLs, and social participation. Body function and

structure impairments and especially activity limitations may restrict participation in

society, thereby limiting role fulfillment at home, work, and within the social

environment. All of these post-stroke changes may also influence caregiver burden,

coping, depression.

The current study was developed to specifically address the relationships between

changes in gait speed and the development of fear of falling with ADLs, IADLs,

participation, and depression. All aspects of the model may be affected by post-stroke

mobility. Activity, participation, and environmental/personal factors must therefore be











addressed. Importantly, all are related to the greater aspect of quality of life and life


satisfaction.

Health Condition
(disorder/disease)
Stroke
*Type of Stroke
*Severity



Activities
Body Structure & ADLs and IADLs Participation
Body Functions (including mobility, gait speed Social participation
Stroke related and fear f fallmg)
Impairments
Sensory
Cognitive
Motor

Environmental Factors Personal Factors
Caregiver *Age
*Depression *Race
*Burden *Cognition
*Coping


Figure 1-2. Conceptual Model

Research Questions

The following research questions are derived from the relationships depicted in


Figure 1-2. The conceptual model was the guiding focus of this study. We used both


qualitative and quantitative data in this study.


We explored the post-stroke relationship between clinically meaningful changes in


gait velocity and performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation.


1. Does a change in gait velocity classification impact the ability to perform ADLs,
IADLs, functional mobility, and social participation after stroke?

We also explored post-stroke fear of falling using qualitative and quantitative data.


Our research question related to examination of the fear of falling qualitative data


include:


2. How do the participants report and characterize fear of falling in the home or
community environment?






8


To complement the study, we examined the relationship between fear of falling and

quantitative data:

3. How is post-stroke fear of falling related to performance in ADLs and IADLs?

4. How does caring for an individual with post-stroke fear of falling impact caregiver
burden and depression?

5. Is there a difference in the proportion of stroke survivors with fear of falling at 1
and 6 months post stroke?














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Stroke is a common problem and the leading cause of adult disability in the United

States. There are many residual motor, sensory, and visual post-stroke deficits making

mobility impairments common. Common post-stroke mobility impairments include

decreased gait velocity, falls, and the development of fear of falling. All may negatively

impact performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily

living (IADLs), and social participation. Such restriction in activity and participation has

been associated with declines in life satisfaction and quality of life.

The following review of the literature is based on the International Classification of

Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) [12] and the conceptual framework found in

Chapter 1 (Figure 1-1 and 1-2). As stated in Chapter 1, stroke related sensory, cognitive,

and motor impairments negatively influence post-stoke mobility, as demonstrated in

decreased gait speed and increased falls and fear of falling. These changes in post-stroke

mobility may impact activity and participation. Activity and participation limitations may

also negatively influence caregiver burden and depression.

In this review of the literature, there will be an overview of mobility concerns of

the community dwelling elderly. Specifically, gait speed, falls, and fear of falling will be

addressed. The limited existing literature specific to post-stroke gait speed, falls, and fear

of falling will also be presented. Additional literature is presented on the impact of

mobility on activity and participation; some is specific to the post-stroke population, but









much is generalized to the community dwelling elderly. Caregiver burden and depression

are also explored in this review as care needs change for those with decreased activity

and participation. Increased caregiver burden and depression are associated with a

patient's history of strokes, falls, and decreased independence.

The objective of this research was to determine the impact of post-stroke mobility

on activity and participation. Specifically, the relationships between changes in gait speed

and the impact on activity and participation were explored. Additionally, the

characterization of fear of falling by a post-stroke population was described. Performance

of ADLs, IADL, and depression for those with fear was also examined. This research will

provide foundational data for future studies examining the impact of post-stroke mobility

on activity and participation.

Mobility in the Community Dwelling Elderly

Mobility has been defined as the "ability to move from one place to another

without assistance" [14]. It is a component of ADLs and is critical for the maintenance of

independence and a sustained quality of life [14, 15]. Mobility disability is defined by the

inability of individuals to "move effectively in their surroundings" [16]. It is a strong

predictor of physical disability and often the first area in which older adults demonstrate

disabilities [16-18]. The prevalence of mobility disability increases from 7.7% of those

over the age of 65 to 35% for those over 80 years [19].

Disability is a risk factor for loss of independence, admission into care facilities,

increased need for caregiving, and health care utilization [20-24]. Those who demonstrate

mobility limitations are at risk for increased disability, dependence, morbidity, and

mortality [17, 25-32]. Mobility limitations have been utilized in predicating disability

outcomes [31].









Changes in gait velocity, increased number of falls, and the development of fear of

falling are three important aspects of mobility. All are common issues for the community

dwelling elderly population. Disability may occur due to any or all of these mobility

changes.

Gait Velocity

Mobility and mobility disability are commonly demonstrated by changes in gait

velocities. Gait velocities often decrease with age and have been associated with severity

of walking difficulties [33]. Cress et al. found that walking speed was the strongest

indicator of self-perceived physical functioning [34]. Gait velocity has therefore become

a frequently measured outcome and goal of rehabilitation.

Gait velocity as an outcome measure

Numerous elderly specific research studies have utilized gait velocity as a primary

outcome measure to assess mobility impairment [35]. Velocity has been deemed useful in

rehabilitation medicine and research as it correlates well to many gait parameters [36]. It

has been related to discharge placement following hospitalization in the elderly

population [37, 38].

Gait speed is an important measure of stroke recovery as it is simple to measure

and has been demonstrated as reliable and sensitive to the stage of recovery post stroke

[9, 35, 39]. Gait speed has been associated with discrimination of stroke effects and is

related to rehabilitation prognosis [40]. Studenski and colleagues demonstrated gait speed

measures of less than 0.6 meters/second (m/s) as a predictor of future health care

utilization and declines in health status [41]. In their study, 69% of the elderly with a

walking velocity of less than 0.6 m/s developed new personal care difficulty as compared

to 12% of those walking faster than 1.0 m/s.









Gait velocity and other aspects of mobility

Decreased gait speed has been related to falls and fear of falling [42-44]. Hausdorff

et al. reported a relationship between falls and factors such as gait speed and functional

status [45]. Maki demonstrated a relationship between decreased gait speed and increased

falls and fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly population [42].

Falls

A fall has been defined as "an event which results in a person coming to rest

unintentionally on the ground or other lower level, not as a result of a major intrinsic

event (such as stroke) or overwhelming hazard" [46, 47] or as "falling all the way down

to the floor or ground, or falling and hitting an object like a chair or stair" [48]. Falls are

significant mobility issues addressed in the literature for the community dwelling elderly.

Incidence and consequences of falls in the community dwelling elderly

Falls are the leading cause of injurious death for those over 65 in the United States

[49]. At least 30% of those over 65 and residing in the community fall annually; 10-20%

fall two or more times [50]. After age 80, annual fall rates increase to 50% [46, 51]. The

elderly who fall are likely to sustain more fall related trauma and serious injury and

demonstrated increased health care utilization compared to young fallers [52]. Fall related

trauma is more likely to be the cause of death in older fallers [53]

In 2001, more than 1.6 million emergency room visits and 15,000 deaths were

attributable to falls [54]. Severe consequences related to falls include hip fractures and

head trauma, increased health care utilization, declines in ADLs and IADLs, decreased

socialization, increased admissions to long-term care facilities, premature disability, and

death [53, 55]. Additionally, King and Tinetti determined that morbidity, physical injury,









restriction of mobility, reduction of activity and participation, and generalized decreases

in independence were fall related consequences [56].

Long-term care admissions. Donald and Bulpitt completed a longitudinal

prospective cohort study to assess fall related deaths and long-term care admissions [57].

Risk of death increased at both one and three years for recurrent fallers. However, all

who fell demonstrated loss of function and independence, consequently increasing long-

term care facility admissions. Tinetti et al. reported 40% of all nursing home admissions

as being fall related [46].

Fractures as a consequence of falls. Approximately 360,000 adults suffer a fall

related hip fracture each year [49]. Half of those who suffer a hip fracture will never

regain their prior level of functioning. Hip fractures are a significant concern as they are

related to more deaths, disability, and medical costs than all other osteoporotic fractures

combined [58].

Falls are an independent risk factor and contribute to 90% of all hip fractures [59,

60]. Minor injuries such as bruises and abrasions occur after 30%-55% of falls [48, 51,

61] and about 4%-6% of falls end in a fracture, often of the hip [46, 48, 61, 62]. Death is

uncommon following a fall; however, fall related hip fractures are the leading cause of

death for those over the age of 65 [63, 64].

Multifactorial risk factors

A review of the literature indicates fall risks are considered multi-factorial [46, 51,

52, 65-75]. Meta-analyses and predictive models have been used to determine many of

the evidence based risk factors. An epidemiological study determined that over 400 fall

risk factors exist [76]. Factors may differ between community dwelling individuals and

those residing in long term care facilities [66]. Table 2-1 provides a list of common falls









risk factors. Each factor is supported in the literature and by recent meta-analyses [46, 49,

51, 52, 66, 68-71, 77].

Table 2-1. Multifactorial risk factors for falls


Risk Factor


Disease & Disability
Stroke
Parkinson's Disease
Cardiovascular function/
disease/blood pressure issues
Arthritis
Neuromuscular disease
Depression
Mobility Impairments
Previous falls
Balance and gait deficit
Decreased gait speed/gait
impairments/mobility impairments
Foot problems
Decreased strength
Other
Environmental factors
Fear of falling
Medications and polypharmacy
Cognition
Vision and hearing
ADL participation
Use of assistive device
Female gender
Age
Urinary incontinence


Sunoortin2 Evidence


[52, 78-86]
[49, 61, 77, 87-89]
[49, 66, 77, 90, 91]

[49, 52, 77, 92-94]
[49, 77]
[49, 52, 66, 77]

[52, 56, 95, 96]
[46, 52, 66, 97-100]
[42-46, 66, 69, 78, 90, 95, 97, 101]

[46]
[46, 52, 61, 66, 71, 74, 90, 95, 97, 99, 102-109]

[46, 66, 110, 111]
[96, 112-115]
[46, 66, 90, 116, 117]
[46, 52, 66, 90, 118-122]
[48, 52, 66, 90, 97, 123]
[52, 66, 90, 107, 124]
[52]
[46, 100, 125-130]
[46, 74, 126, 131-133]
[66, 69, 74, 134, 135]


Number of risk factors

The risk of falling is exacerbated when the actual number of existing risk factors is

increased [46, 70]. Tinetti and colleagues completed a community based study examining

those with and without fall risk factors [46]. At one year, 27% of individuals with one or

no risk factors fell compared to 78% of those with four or more factors. Nevitt and

colleagues indicated falls increased from 10% to 69% as the number of risk factors

increased from one to four or more [61]. Robbins et al. compared one-year fall rates for


I









those with and without three identified risk factors: hip weakness, unstable balance, more

than four medications [100]. One hundred percent of those with all three risk factors fell

compared to 12% who had none of the risk factors. Furthermore, Tinetti et al. ascertained

that falls increased from 0% in those with 0-3 risk factors to 100% for those with seven

or more factors [90].

Fear of falling as a risk factor and consequence of falls

Fear of falling has been established as both a risk factor and consequence of falls

[96, 112, 113]. Fear of falling may develop post-fall, or a fall may occur due to severe

issues related to fear of falling [96]. Psychological trauma related to a fall may be related

to concern of suffering another fall or a result of changes in function and pain related to a

previous fall. Additionally, being stranded on the ground after a fall is a common fear.

Friedman et al. determined fear of falling as a significant risk factor for future falls,

and also demonstrated falls as a risk factor for the development of fear of falling [96].

Delbaere and colleagues examined the "vicious" cycle that exists between falls and fear

of falling [114]. The authors concluded fear of falling is both a risk factor and serious

consequence of falls.

Fear of Falling

Fear of falling was first identified and termed "postfall syndrome" [136] or

ptophobia in 1982 [137], and then simply "fear of falling" in the later 1980's [138, 139].

Fear of falling has been defined as a "disabling symptom of impaired mobility among

frail older people that is significantly associated with depression, diminished performance

in gait, and restricted IADL" [113] and "as a lasting concern about falling that leads to an

individual's avoiding activities that he/she remains capable of performing" [140]. Others

have considered fear of falling as a loss of confidence balance abilities [141, 142]. It has









also been defined as a general concept that describes low confidence (efficacy) for

avoiding falls and simply being afraid to fall [143].

Incidence of fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly

Fear of falling is a common difficulty faced by the elderly and is one of the greatest

fears experience by the elderly [115]. Walker and Howland compared fear of falling to

the fear of robbery, fear of forgetting an important appointment, fear of financial

difficulties, and fear of losing a cherished item. Twenty-five percent of the 115

community based participants determined fear of falling as their greatest fear.

Great variability exists surrounding the incidence of fear of falling and incidence

may or may not be related to a previous fall. Researchers have indicated fear of falling in

29%-92% of those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% of those without a recent fall

[46, 70, 113, 115, 144-152]. Fear may develop simply due to knowing someone who had

sustained a serious fall or fall related injury [153].

Myers et al. examined fear of falling in community dwelling elders [150]. Fear of

falling was assessed by asking "are you afraid of falling?"; 56% of those with a previous

fall and 58% without a fall reported being fearful. Further analysis with the Falls Efficacy

Scale determined similar results. The authors expressed that fear of falling may be

underestimated in the elderly due to a fear of institutionalization and a resultant refusal to

participate in such research.

Arfken completed a study to better determine the prevalence and the correlates of

fear of falling [43]. Fear of falling was determined to be more prevalent among the older

participants. Dependent on age, 10%-16% of men reported to be moderately fearful and

0%-5% were very fearful. Comparatively, 15%-34% of women were moderately fearful

and 6%-12% were very fearful. More recently, Stolze et al. completed a prospective









study to investigate the prevalence of falls in differing neurological diseases [154]. Prior

falls were significantly correlated with fear of falling; 57% of the fallers reported fear of

falling compared to 24% of the nonfallers.

Fear of falling risk factors

Like falls, fear of falling is considered to have multifactorial risk factors. Other

than a previous fall, risk factors correlated to the development of fear of falling include:

increased age [43, 144, 148], female gender [43, 144, 148, 155, 156], hospitalization

[143], and dizziness [157]. Murphy et al. completed a study to identify predisposing risk

factors for the development of fear of falling in an all female community dwelling

population [158]. Predisposing factors for fear development included: age over 80, visual

impairments, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of available emotional support.

Mobility [42, 155] and prior falls [96, 112, 113] are significant risk factors for the

development of future fear of falling. Maki and colleagues completed a cross-sectional

study to investigate the relationship between fear of falling and postural balance and

control [155]. The researchers discussed significantly decreased scoring on balance

assessments for those with fear of falling. Additionally, Maki et al. demonstrated an

association between fear of falling and changes in mobility, such as decreased stride

length, decreased speed, increased double stance time, decreased clinical gait scores, and

increased stride [42]. Vellas et al. demonstrated those with a reported fear of falling

experienced greater balance and gait disorders compared to those without fear of falling

[144]. Ultimately, participants with fear of falling endured decreases in mobility.

Friedman et al. examined the temporal relationship and the shared predictors of

falls and fear of falling [96]. Falls and fear of falling data were collected at both baseline

and 20 months. If participants were assessed as fearful of falling, they were asked about









fear related activity restriction. During the initial assessment, 27.8% participants reported

a fall, 20.8% expressed fear of falling, and 46.2% of those with fear of falling had

curtailed activities. At follow-up, nonfallers with fear were more likely to report falls

than those without fear (32.6% vs 17.9%). Fallers with no fear of falling at baseline were

twice as likely than nonfallers to report fear at follow-up (20.6% vs. 11.6%). Regardless

of fall status, all who expressed fear of falling at baseline were very likely to express fear

again at 20 months.

Researchers have discussed "evidence of a spiraling effect of increasing falls, fear,

and functional decline" [114]. They stated fear of falling is not only an acute outcome

secondary to falls, but "more likely recognition of being at risk, both of falling and of the

adverse outcomes that can result from falls". Additionally it was concluded that once fear

develops, it is likely to persist and influence activities and future fall rates.

Mobility in the Post-Stroke Population

Stroke and Mobility Impairment

Post-stroke residual deficits may exacerbate the mobility issues of the community

dwelling elderly population. Such mobility impairments may negatively gait speed, falls,

and fear of falling after a stroke.

Stroke

Stroke is the primary cause of disability and is the third leading cause of death for

those over the age of 65 [1-4]. The American Heart Association reports stroke as a

common neurological event occurring in 700,000 people annually; over 4 million are

living with residual deficits [159]. O'Sullivan has defined a stroke, or cerebrovascular

accident (CVA), as "an acute onset of neurological dysfunction due to an abnormality in

cerebral circulation with resultant signs and symptoms that correspond to involvement of









focal areas of the brain" [160]. It has been classified as the most disabling chronic disease

with deleterious consequences for individuals, families, and society [5, 6].

Because age is a known risk factor for stroke, stroke incidence is expected to

increase as the population ages. Stroke prevalence is expected to increases as stroke

survival rates continue to increase [161, 162]. The majority of stroke survivors will be

discharged from the acute care setting and will return home with mild or moderate

physical, cognitive, or emotional deficits [78]. For example, in the Department of

Veterans' Affairs, 72% of all stroke survivors were discharged home into the community

in 1999 [163].

Gait Velocity After Stroke

Mobility impairment, such as decreased gait velocity has been related to stroke

related outcomes. Perry and colleagues assessed the relationship between gait speed and

mobility in participants 3 months post-stroke [9]. Six ambulation categories were

developed, each was related to post-stroke mobility and ambulation in and out of the

home (borrowed from Hoffer et al. who utilized a four step walking handicap scale for

children [164]). See Table 2-2 for the six ambulation categories.

Perry et al. used five clinical measures to place post-stroke participants into one of

the six categories. The measures included: a walking ability questionnaire, stride

characteristics including gait speed, upright motor control testing, and proprioception.

Many analyses were completed, and the difference in gait velocity demonstrated the

greatest statistical significance between categories. Discriminate analyses were

completed and identified gait velocity as the only clinical measure to significantly predict

placement into the categories. Those considered as physiological walkers had a mean









velocity of 0.1 .03 m/s compared to community walkers with a gait velocity of 0.8 +

0.18 m/s.

Table 2-2. Six ambulation categories


Ambulation level
Physiological walker
Limited household walker

Unlimited household
walker

Most-limited community
walker


Least-limited community
walker
Community walker


Ambulation ability
Walks only for exercise or in therapy
Requires assist for some walking activities, does walk
during some home activities
Able to walk for all household activities, has difficulty with
stairs and uneven terrain, not able to enter and leave the
house independently
Able to enter and leave their home independently, is able to
ascend and descend curbs, able to manage stairs but with
assistance, independent in at least one community activity,
but needs assistance with others
Independent in stairs, all moderate community activities,
and in local stores and uncrowded shopping centers
Independent in all home and community activities, can walk
with crowds and on uneven terrain, and able to be
independent in shopping centers


The classification system was condensed to depict three distinct gait velocity based

classifications (see Table 2-3). This was necessary due to the similarities in gait speed

between the household walkers. A walking speed of less than 0.4 m/s was determined

equivalent to severe gait impairments and the household ambulation category. Limited

community ambulation equals moderate gait impairments and speeds between 0.4 m/s

and 0.8 m/s. Those in the community ambulation category walk over 0.8 m/s and are

considered to have mild or limited post-stroke gait impairment. The normal healthy older

population has been documented to walk at a gait velocity of 1.33 m/s [165].

Table 2-3. Gait Speed Classification
Speed, m/s Impairment Ambulation Ability
< 0.4 Severe Household ambulation
0.4-0.8 Moderate Limited Community Ambulation
> 0.8 Mild Community Ambulation
1.33 None Normal, Healthy Elderly Population









Lord and colleagues extended this work and evaluated the relationships between

post-stroke gait speed and community ambulation [10]. Community ambulation was

defined as "locomotion outdoors to encompass activities such as visits to the

supermarket, shopping malls, and back; social outings; vacations; and pursuit of leisure

activities". All 130 post-stroke participants lived at home, 115 participants received

physical therapy for mobility impairments and 15 did not require therapy. Mobility

outcome measures assessed gait velocity, indoor and outdoor walking ability, functional

mobility, and gait endurance. An additional self-report questionnaire assessed community

ambulation according to unsupervised mobility. Participants were placed into one of four

ambulation categories (see Table 2-4.), 1) not ambulating outside of the home, 2)

ambulating as far as the letterbox, 3) ambulating within the immediate environment, 4)

ambulating in a shopping center and/or other places of interest.

Those not requiring physical therapy post-stroke demonstrated the fastest gait

velocity. Gait speed was within normal limits for this group and significantly higher than

the overall mean, 1.36 m/s compared to .94 m/s. Gait speed differed between the four

categories and increased as community ambulation increased (Table 2-4). The self-report

questionnaire indicated 14.6% of the participants were unable to leave their home

unsupervised, 16.9% were able to walk to the letterbox, 7.6% were limited to ambulating

in their immediate environment, and 60.7% were able to ambulate within a shopping

center and/or other place of interest. The authors concluded gait velocity was important to

community ambulation and demonstrated that nearly one third of the sample was not able

to ambulate independently within the community after a stroke.









The relationship between gait speed and mobility has been supported in the

literature. However the relationship between changes in post-stroke gait velocity and the

ability to perform ADLs, IADLs, and social participation has never been explored.

Table 2-4. Community ambulation
Group Community Ambulation Level % of Sample Speed (m/s)
1 Unable to leave home 14.6% 0.515 m/s
2 Able to walk to letter box 16.9% 0.66 m/s
3 Limited to immediate environment 7.6% 0.82 m/s
4 Ambulate in shopping center 60.7% 1.14 m/s

Falls After Stroke

Falls are considered the most common medical complication after stroke [166]. Fall

rates increase significantly post-stroke due to motor and sensory impairments and

residual functional, cognitive, and emotional deficits. These deficits are often related to

mobility impairments and losses in ADLs, IADLs, social participation, and overall

quality of life. Falls may contribute to post-stroke residual impairments and further

decreased abilities to complete ADLs and IADLs.

Researchers have shown 22-39% of the acute stroke population falling before

hospital discharge [166-168]. Those who fall while in the hospital are twice as likely to

fall after discharge. Existing research indicates falls remain an issue at discharge [78, 79]

and still at 10 years post-stroke [82, 169]. Forster and Young examined falls incidence

and consequence and reported 73% of the participants fell in the first six-months post-

stroke [79]. Importantly, only 21% of those who fell during the study had fallen prior to

their stroke. The "fallers", those with two or more falls, walked with a slower gait speed,

were engaged in less social activity, and were more likely to be depressed.









Stroke as a risk factor for falls

Stroke is one of the most commonly cited risk factor for falls [82]. Hyndman et al.

determined stroke as a risk factor for falls in a cross-sectional, observational study [170].

Half of the 41 community dwelling stroke survivors sustained a post-stroke fall and 10

had fallen more than once. Additional risk factors for those deemed "repeated fallers"

included: post-stroke mobility deficits, upper extremity ability, and declines in ADLs and

IADLs. Byers and colleagues studied acute stroke survivors and concluded post-stroke

fall risk factors included a history of falls, impaired decision making ability, restlessness,

generalized weakness, and abnormal hematocrit levels [81]. Jorgensen et al. determined

the risk of falling was at least twice as high for those post-stroke in a case-control study

[82]. Forster and Young found those post-stroke who fell in the hospital were twice as

likely to fall after being discharged home [79].

Yates and colleagues indicated that those post-stroke are at increased risk for

falling [78]. They investigated the effect of accumulated impairments on the risk of

falling in community-dwelling stroke survivors. Of 280 participants, 51% sustained a fall

between 1 and 6 months post-stroke. Accumulated post-stroke impairments were

characterized as motor, motor and sensory, or motor and sensory and visual. Fall rates for

those with accumulated deficits were compared to those without any of the impairments.

Results from a multiple logistic regression indicated that the risk of falling increased with

motor impairment and motor and sensory impairments. Interestingly, those with motor

and sensory and visual impairments had decreased falls risk. This was most likely due to

increased severity of the stroke, decreased balance, and therefore overall decreased

mobility. The authors concluded that the community-dwelling post-stroke population

demonstrate a higher risk of falling.









Post-stroke hip fractures

Those post-stroke are at risk for both falls and the development of osteoporosis of

the hemiparietic limb, consequently, increasing risk for hip fractures [58]. Ramnemark

and colleagues observed hip fracture incidence in 1139 post-stroke individuals [171]. One

hundred and twenty participants sustained 154 fractures, 84% of all fractures were

secondary to an accidental fall. Hip fractures accounted for 70 (45%) of all recorded

fractures and most affected the paretic side. A four-fold increase of hip fracture was

demonstrated in this post-stroke population.

Ramnemark, et al. completed an additional study examining those sustaining a

femoral neck fracture [172]. Short-term outcomes and mortality were compared for those

with and without a history of stroke. In total, 27.4% participants had sustained a stroke

prior to the hip fracture. Additionally, the majority of hip fractures occurred to the

hemiparietic limb and survival rates were reduced for these patients.

Fear of Falling After Stroke

Post-stroke balance confidence

Currently, there is little research regarding the prevalence of fear of falling

development in the post-stroke population. At this time, the only work related to post-

stroke fear of falling has been completed to validate fear of falling assessments for the

post-stroke population [173-175]. The researchers have indicated that those who have

sustained a stroke are likely to exhibit lower falls confidence while performing activities,

thus demonstrated increased fear of falling.

Decreased falls confidence, or falls efficacy, is based on Bandura's theory of self-

efficacy [176]. Those with low self-efficacy for a particular activity will tend to avoid

that activity. In contrast, those with high self-efficacy will initiate the activity with









enhanced confidence. The self-efficacy theory suggests a reciprocal relationship between

efficacy and function; efficacy may influence function, but the ability to complete

functional activities also influences efficacy. Fear of falling assessments are often based

on self-efficacy and assess whether a person feels confident in their ability to complete

activities with out sustaining a fall [112, 147, 174].

Post-stroke fear of falling assessments

Hellstrom and Lindmark completed a test-retest reliability study of the expanded

Falls Efficacy Scale (Swedish Version) (FES(S)) and compared group differences in

scores on the assessment [173]. The FES was developed by Tinetti et al. and measures

self-perceived fear of falling during the performance of 10 common activities [112]. The

FES(S) includes an additional three items, getting in and out of bed, grooming, and

toileting. These three items were added due to the reduced independence often sustained

by the post-stroke population. Thirty post-stroke participants were included, overall-test-

retest-reliability was high and the FES(S) was indicated as a reliable assessment of falls

efficacy in the post-stroke population. Hellstrom and colleagues completed additional

reliability assessments to determine the ability of the of the FES(S) to assess clinically

meaningful changes over time in the post-stroke population [174]. The changes as

measured by the FES were compared to changes evident using the Berg Balance Scale

and the Fugl-Meyer balance and motor function subscale. The assessments were

completed at admission and discharge from rehabilitation and 10 months later. The

analyses of responsiveness determined individuals post-stroke demonstrated decreased

fall related self-efficacy compared to elderly participants in other fall studies.

A very recent study examined the reliability and validity of the Activities-specific

Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale for those post-stroke [175]. The ABC is a previously









validated and reliable measure of balance confidence that measures confidence in

performing various tasks without falling [150, 177, 178]. All participants were

community dwelling ambulatory older adults who had sustained a stroke at least one year

prior to the study. Significant correlation existed between the ABC and gait speed and

balance assessments (Berg Balance). The authors concluded the ABC reliable and valid

for the post-stroke population.

Post-stroke fear of falling

While there is profuse research related to fear of falling in the community dwelling

elderly, there is a paucity of information specific to the development of fear of falling

after stroke. It can be construed that as fall rates increase [79] and mobility decreases

after stroke, an increase of fear of falling will be demonstrated. Motor function, balance,

mobility, emotional well-being, and attention may all be diminished following a stroke.

All may influence falls incidence and the development of fear of falling [78, 79].

Increased fear of falling may too be related to a realization of physical and cognitive

declines developed post-stroke.

Fear of falling has been demonstrated as both a risk factor for falls and as a serious

consequence resulting from falls [96, 112, 113]. With post-stroke falls incidence as high

as 73% [79], it is likely that the rate of fear of falling is equally exacerbated after a stroke.

However, there is little evidence-based literature to support this relationship.

Activity and Participation

Restriction of Activity and Participation

Restriction of activity has been related to the development of disability in the

elderly population. Health and functional status, health care utilization, decreased

independence, increased social isolation, and overall quality of life and life satisfaction









are all impacted by activity curtailment [179, 180]. It is related to decreased

independence and increases in caregiver burden. Restriction of activity has been used as

an outcome measure in geriatric intervention trials attempting to reduce disability [181-

183]. Thus activity restriction is an important consideration for the community dwelling

post-stroke population.

Gill et al. attempted to identify health and non-health related problems associated

with activity restriction [179]. Within the 15-month study period, 76.6% of the elderly

sample restricted activity during at least one month and 39.3% for two consecutive

months. Health care utilization was elevated during months of activity restriction. Gill

and colleagues also evaluated the relationship between restricted activity and disability

development [180]. The authors concluded that activity restriction was significantly

related to disability development for the community dwelling older population.

Guralnik et al. explored mobility disability and found that limitations in mobility

can lead to decreased performance of ADLs [17]. Such limitations in ADLs and IADLs

have been related to disability and increased health care utilization. It therefore is

essential to explore the impact of mobility, such as gait speed, falls, and fear of falling, on

activity and participation.

Gait Speed, Activity, and Participation

Gait speed has been associated with community mobility [9, 10]. Those with

declines in gait speed may demonstrate decreases in activity and participation and

experience decreased opportunities to return to societal and personal roles [184].

Consequently, perceived quality of life and life satisfaction are at risk.

Potter and colleagues completed a study to determine a relationship between gait

speed and ADL performance in the elderly population [184]. All participants were older









than 65 and independently mobile. Participants were all admitted to inpatient or

outpatient care, but not hospitalized due to a specific diagnosis. All participants had

nonsurgical hospitalizations, were medically stable, and were appropriate for

rehabilitation. Participants with differing diagnoses and a range of functional abilities

were eligible for inclusion, therefore, those with acute infectious illnesses, strokes, acute

relapses of chronic neurological disease (Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis), falls,

and cardiovascular pathologies were included. Gait speed, ADLs, and mental status were

assessed. Gait speed ranged from 0.05 m/s to greater than 0.55 m/s and was placed into

one of six categories.

The authors concluded that an association between decreased gait speed and ADL

ability levels was evident. Those with a gait speed of less than 0.25 m/s were more likely

dependent in one or more ADL; only 36% of those with gait speed less than 0.25 m/s

were considered independent in all ADL functioning. In contrast, 72.1% of those with

gait speed between 0.35 m/s and 0.55 m/s were independent in all ADLs.

Studenski et al. completed a prospective cohort study to determine whether gait

speed could be used as a "clinical vital sign" in a community dwelling elderly population

[41]. Outcome measures included demographics, health and functional status, and

physical performance. Those with a gait speed of less than 0.6 m/s were categorized as

slow walkers and demonstrated a 69% incidence of new personal care difficulty.

Comparatively, 28% of those with a gait speed of 0.6 to 1.0 m/s and 12% with gait speed

greater than 1.0 m/s demonstrated new care needs. The researchers concluded that a

slowing of gait speed has negative effects on overall mobility and the ability to complete

ADLs and IADLs.









Falls, Activity, and Participation

Restriction of mobility and declines in ability to complete ADLs and IADLs are

severe consequences associated with falls [56, 138, 170]. All are negatively related to

decreased independence and quality of life. Stel and colleagues examined fall related

declines in functional status and physical activity [185]. Functional status was measured

with stair climbing, dressing, standing from a chair, cutting toenails, walking outside and

transportation. Physical activity changes were measured with walking, bicycling,

gardening, sport activities, and light and heavy household activities. Post-fall declines in

functional status were reported by 35.3% of their sample and 15.2% reported declines in

physical activity. Vellas et al. determined that those who fell in a prospective study

demonstrated restricted activity and decreased independence at 6 months [138].

Tinetti and Williams completed a study to determine the impact of falls and fall

related injuries on ADLs, IADLs, social activity, and advanced physical activities in a

community dwelling elderly population [141]. At one and three years, falling was

associated with declines in ADLs, IADLs, and social participation. Those with multiple

falls experienced greater declines in activity and participation and those with injurious

falls also demonstrated declines in advanced physical activity. An association between

declines in activity and falls incidence and/or severity of injury was demonstrated, thus

indicating a "dose response" relationship between falls and functional losses.

Yardley and Smith examined the most commonly held beliefs regarding falls and

activity curtailment [186]. The Consequences of Falling (CoF) Scale was developed and

validated by the authors. It assessed types of fear related to falls, such as fear of physical

injury, fear of long-term functional incapacity, fear of subjective anxiety, and fear of

social discomfort. Demographics, mobility level, use of a walking aide, falls history and









incidence, falls related safety, and fear of falling were also assessed. Nearly half of the

participation reported a fall in the previous year. Long term functional disability and loss

of independence were cited as the most common fears. Social discomfort and a loss of

confidence and personal identity were also indicated as common fears. Activity

restriction was correlated with anticipated damage to personal identity and loss of

independence. Social participation was avoided to decrease the risk of social

embarrassment secondary to a fall. The CoF was correlated to activity avoidance, but

importantly, it also predicted increased avoidance of activity performance at follow up.

Fear of Falling, Activity, and Participation

Activity restriction has been demonstrated in 20% to 55% of those reporting fear of

falling [46, 93, 148, 187]. Activity limitations and decreased social participation may be

due to fear of falling or due to the injury or pain experienced from a previous fall [46, 48,

188]. Overall decreased independence, quality of life, and life satisfaction are at risk due

to fear of falling related changes in activity and participation.

Fear of falling has been related to declined performance of ADLs and IADLs,

social participation, and community integration [43, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152, 189-192].

Additionally fear of falling is related to decreased mobility, stair climbing, vision, general

health, depressed mood, decreased social and physical activities, and poor life satisfaction

[10, 56, 113, 140, 147, 186]. Fear of falling is associated with deteriorated health status

[143, 144, 148, 149, 152] and therefore negatively influences physical and functional

well-being [193]. All lead to further functional declines, decreased quality of life, and

increased caregiver burden [113].

Li et al. summarized a relationship regarding fear of falling and concluded that fear

negatively influences falls related self-efficacy [194]. This subsequently impacts balance,









physical ability, and mobility impairments. This cycle accelerates declines of physical

health, activity, and participation; possibly increasing the incidence of falls. Delbaere et

al. emphasized the "vicious cycle" of frailty regarding fear related avoidance of activity.

They concluded an association between fear of falling with new physical declines such as

increased frailty, decreased postural control, and decreased muscle strength, and an

overall increase of falls risk, thus leading to increased fear of falling [114].

The literature regarding the impact of fear of falling on activity and participation is

profuse. It has been identified, reviewed, and synthesized into an evidenced based table

found in Appendix a. It is evident from this review of the literature that those with

developed fear of falling are at great risk for decreased performance in ADLs, IADLs,

and social participation, and are therefore at significant risk for declines in quality of life

and life satisfaction.

Caregivers

Stroke and Caregiving

As demonstrated in the conceptual model, post-stroke mobility disability may

negatively impact activity, participation, and depression, thereby increasing dependence

and possibly increasing caregiver depression and burden. A review of the literature

reveals abundant caregiving research, however, there is a paucity of research specifically

related to caregiving after a stroke or specifically regarding the burden and stress

experienced by informal caregivers [4].

Those participating in post-stroke caregiving may provide assistance in many life

domains including mobility, self-care, and communication. However, stroke related

complications such as cognitive impairment, depression, and personality changes may

require increased provision of caregiving and assistance [4, 195]. A post-stroke reduction









in ADL and IADL performance frequently results in reduced levels of functional

independence and subsequently increases the necessity of additional care in the home.

Often, those post-stroke are dependent on caregivers to maintain community living and

stave off facility or institution admission. The review of the literature indicated more

research is necessary, specifically in the areas of caregiver physical health, ethnicity, and

caregiver interventions.

Mobility Disability and Caregiving

Researchers have demonstrated relationships between mobility disability and

limitations in activity and participation and consequential losses of independence, and

increased need for care, health utilization, and admission into care facilities [14, 15, 20-

24]. Specifically, caregiving after falls has been explored. The resulting complications of

a fall can be severe and include death, fractures, and further losses of independence. It is

therefore expected that falls are negatively associated with caregiver burden and

depression. Forster and Young demonstrated negative effects for the caregiver when post-

fall declines in ADL performance were evident [79]. The caregivers taking care of

"fallers" were more stressed, and one-third of all caregivers stated that concern for a fall

limited their own social activity. Stolze et al. also indicated increased burden for those

caring for the post-fall population [154]. Howland and colleagues also demonstrated a

relationship between caregiver support and fear of falling related activity curtailment

[148].

There has been no research completed specifically examining caregiving after fear

of falling development or changes in gait speed. However it is expected that caregiving

needs will increase due to mobility related declines in performance of activities.









Caregiver Depression

Researchers have indicated high levels of depression associated with stroke

survivor caregivers compared to non-caregivers [4]. The prevalence of depression in the

caregiving population ranges from 34% to as high as 52% [196-199]. Spousal and female

caregivers have demonstrated increased depression which tends to persist over long

periods of time [200].

A Japanese study demonstrated depression in 52% of 100 stroke caregivers, this

was double the depression rate for the control group (23%) [201]. Hartke and King found

that depressed caregivers were more likely to have difficulty with caregiving, report more

problems with the care recipient, experience financial concerns, and report a decrease in

social involvement [202]. Researchers have found a relationship between increased

stroke caregiver depression and increased stroke severity [203, 204]. Kotila et al

compared the incidence and severity of depression at 3 and 12 months post-stroke [205].

Both stroke survivors and their caregivers demonstrated increased levels of depression

which were maintained at the one-year follow up.

Caregiver Burden

Morimoto and colleagues found that the strongest predictor of declining quality of

life for stroke caregivers was a high level of caregiver burden [201]. Burden is caused by

feelings of large responsibility, uncertainty about the care needs of the stroke survivor,

decreased social interaction, and being the sole provider of care [206]. Bugge and

colleagues (1999) studied caregivers at 1, 3, and 6 months post-stroke. The amount of

time spent helping a patient, the amount of time spent with the patient, and the

caregiver's health were determined as the most influential factors of caregiver strain









[207]. Caregivers providing greater levels of care (e.g. toileting, bathing) experienced

greater emotional distress and greater caregiver burden [208, 209].

Summary of the Literature Review

This review of literature demonstrates that post-stroke motor, sensory, and

cognitive impairments influence mobility. Falls, fear of falling, and gait speed are all

impacted aspects of post-stroke mobility and all may be related to restriction of activity

and participation. Activity curtailment has been related to decreases in quality of life and

life satisfaction.

There is no research specific to the development of fear of falling post-stroke. This

research was completed as an initial exploration of fear of falling in the post-stroke

population. Fear of falling was characterized for the post-stroke population, and activity

restriction was explored. Similarly, the relationship between post-stroke gait speed

changes and its impact on activity and participation were evaluated. This research will

provide a foundation for exploring the impact of post-stroke mobility on activity and

participation.














CHAPTER 3
THE IMPACT OF POST-STROKE GAIT VELOCITY CHANGES ON
ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPATION

Introduction

The American Heart Association reports that 700,000 people sustain a stroke

annually [159]; it is the primary cause of adult disability [2-4]. Stroke related deficits

include motor, sensory, and cognitive impairments that negatively influence mobility.

Losses in mobility are often reflected by declines in gait velocity [40, 210]. Mobility

impairments and changes in gait velocity are related to losses of independence and

decreased ability to reengage in the community [9].

Gait speed is an important clinical and research outcome measure. It is a common

measure of mobility and a reliable, valid, and sensitive measure of post-stroke locomotor

recovery [9, 39]. It discriminates the effects of stroke and is related to the potential for

rehabilitation recovery [40]. Gait velocity is a predictor of health status and health care

utilization in the elderly [41]. It is associated with performance of activities of daily

living (ADLs) and community ambulation [9, 10, 184].

Potter et al. determined a relationship between gait speed and ADL performance in

the community dwelling elderly [184]. Participants with multiple diagnoses were

included and those with decreased gait speed demonstrated decreased independence. A

gait speed less than 0.25 meters per second (m/s) was associated with dependence in one

or more ADL; only 36% of those with gait speed less than 0.25 m/s were considered









independent in all ADLs. In contrast, 72.1% of those with gait speed between 0.35 m/s

and 0.55 m/s were independent in all ADLs.

Perry et al. examined the association between post-stroke gait velocity and

ambulation [9]. The authors developed an ambulation classification related to necessary

gait speed for home and community ambulation. Household ambulation was equal to

severe gait impairment and velocity less than 0.4 m/s. Limited community ambulation

was equivalent to moderate gait impairments and walking between 0.4 m/s and 0.8 m/s.

Community ambulation indicated mild impairment and speed over 0.8 m/s. Increases in

gait velocity were related to improved home and community ambulation.

The relationship between post-stroke gait speed and community ambulation was

further explored by Lord and colleagues [10]. Participants included 115 individuals who

received physical therapy for mobility impairments and 15 not requiring such therapy.

Mobility outcome measures assessed gait speed, indoor and outdoor walking ability, and

gait endurance. An additional self-report questionnaire assessed unsupervised mobility.

Participants were categorized by community ambulation levels as seen in Table 3-1. Gait

velocity differed between the categories and increased from 0.52 m/s for those unable to

leave home to 1.14 m/s for those able to ambulate in a shopping center. One third of the

sample was not able to ambulate independently within the community after a stroke.

Table 3-1. Community ambulation and gait speed
Group Community Ambulation Level % of Sample Speed (m/s)
1 Unable to leave home 14.6% 0.52
2 Able to walk to letter box 16.9% 0.66
3 Limited to immediate environment 7.6% 0.82
4 Ambulate in shopping center 60.7% 1.14

In summary, the relationships between gait speed and ADL performance in the

community dwelling elderly and between gait speed and post-stroke ambulation are well









established [9, 10, 184]. However, it is not known whether a change in post-stroke gait

velocity is "clinically meaningful", as reflected by improved functional abilities such as

activity and participation. A clinically meaningful change is important to determine as it

is related to patient-valued benefits. Barrett et al. discussed the need to observe a

clinically "important difference" by merging patient-oriented and evidence-based

frameworks together [7]. Such clinical meaningfulness can be seen by examining the

sufficiently important difference (SID), the smallest amount of patient-valued benefit

required from an intervention to justify associated costs, risks, and other harms. Lord and

Rochester recently stated a need for a conceptual framework related to post-stroke

mobility and that there is "no guarantee that increases in gait velocity will denote a

meaningful improvement in performance" [211]. The objective of this study was to

determine whether a change in gait speed over three months was clinically meaningful as

reflected by the impact on ADLs (including mobility), instrumental activities of daily

living (IADLs), and social participation after stroke.

Methods

Design

Data in this study are derived from a parent study; a prospective, randomized,

controlled, single-blind, clinical intervention trial [8]. The trial was completed to

determine the effects of a therapist-supervised 12-14 week home-based, structured, and

progressive exercise intervention on participants post-stroke. The intervention focused on

upper and lower-limb strength, balance, endurance, and increased use of the affected

extremities. The intervention group was compared to a usual care group who received

rehabilitation as prescribed by their physician and bi-weekly visits from research staff

Informed consent was received from all participants through methods approved by the









Institutional Review Board of the university and each participating facility. All

participants were recruited from an ongoing stroke registry. This secondary analysis was

approved by the University of Florida Health Science Center Institutional Review Board.

This analysis did not examine differences between intervention and usual care

groups. Rather we examined the differences in ADLs, IADLs, and social participation

between those who did and did not successfully advance to the next ambulation

classification as portrayed by Perry et al. [9]. For example, the participants considered

successful, transitioned from an initial gait velocity of less than 0.4 m/s to 0.4 to 0.8 m/s

or faster or they advanced from an initial gait velocity between 0.4 to 0.8 m/s to greater

than 0.8 m/s. Gait velocity was measured at baseline and repeated at 3 months.

Participants

All participants were selected from one of 17 medical facilities, all of which were

partaking in an ongoing Kansas City Stroke Registry. All those registered gave informed

consent and permission to be screened for eligibility for future research studies. Those

eligible for the registry had a confirmed diagnosis of a stroke within 3-28 days, were over

age 50, and lived within a 50-mile radius. Registry exclusion criteria included the

following: subarachonoid hemorrhage, being lethargic, obtunded, or comatose,

uncontrolled blood pressure, hepatic or renal failure, NYHA III/IV heart failure, known

limited life expectancy, or pre-stroke disability in self care; or previously lived in a

nursing home prior to the stroke.

Those in the registry were eligible to be screened for this randomized clinical trial.

Inclusion for the parent clinical trial included: (1) stroke within 30-150 days, (2) ability to

ambulate 25 feet independently, (3) mild to moderate stroke deficits defined by a Fugl-

Meyer score of 29 to 90 for upper and lower extremities, an Orpington Prognostic Scale









score of 2.0 to 5.2, and palpable wrist extension on the involved side; and (4) Folstein

Mini-Mental Status examination score greater than 16. Exclusion criterion included: (1)

serious cardiac conditions (hospitalization for heart disease within 3 months, active

angina, serious cardiac arrhythmias, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, severe aortic stenosis,

pulmonary embolus, or infarction), (2) oxygen dependence, (3) severe weight-bearing

pain, (4) other serious organ system disease, and (5) life expectancy of < 1 year. All

participants signed an informed consent to partake in the trial and all had approval from a

primary care physician [8]. Ninety-two individuals completed the clinical trial, 44 in the

intervention arm and 48 in the usual care arm. Specifically, only 64 of the 92 participants

were included in this three-month analysis because those walking > 0.8 m/s at baseline

were excluded. This report does not compare the intervention to the usual care groups,

but combines all participants walking < 0.8 m/s at baseline to allow for examination of

clinically meaningful changes in post-stroke gait speed.

Outcome Measures

The parent clinical trial included the Orpington Prognostic Scale to measures stroke

severity [212]. Disability outcomes measures included the Functional Independence

Measure (FIM) [213], the Barthel [214], the Lawton and Brody IADLs assessment [215],

and gait speed thresholds for community ambulation [10]. Quality of life measures

included subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale [216] and the Medical Outcomes Study SF

36 [217]. Results for outcome measures are found elsewhere [8]. Gait speed, activity, and

participation were the specific outcome measures used for this secondary analysis.

Gait velocity

Gait velocity was measured by the 10-Meter Walk, a valid and reliable measure for

gait velocity assessment in the elderly post-stroke population [218]. The 10-Meter Walk









consisted of two completed walks without rests in between and collected in

meters/second.

Specifically, the main outcome for this analysis was the proportion of participants

who demonstrated "success" by transitioning from one ambulation classification to the

next. Both baseline and final outcome measures were placed into the ambulation

classification previously developed by Perry et al.: < 0.4 = household ambulation, 0.4 -

0.8 = limited community ambulation, and > 0.8 = community ambulation [9]. Changes in

gait velocity were considered as successful walking recovery when participants shifted

from < 0.4 m/s to 0.4 0.8 m/s (household to limited community ambulation) or 0.4 0.8

m/s to > 0.8 m/s (limited community to community ambulation) [9]. A dichotomous

variable of "success" or "fail" was utilized for the analysis.

Activity and participation

Activity and participation were assessed with the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), a

comprehensive and psychometrically robust stroke-specific outcome measure [216, 219].

The SIS was developed from the perspective of patients, caregivers, and health

professionals with stroke expertise. It has been demonstrated to be reliable, valid, and

sensitive to change related to stroke recovery. There are eight domains and 59 items in

version 3.0, specifically, the SIS ADL/IADL, mobility, participation, and SIS-16 physical

functioning components were used for this analysis [220]. Items such as food preparation,

bathing, toileting, shopping, and household tasks were assessed with the ADL/IADL

component. Mobility was assessed with items regarding loss of balance, transferring,

walking, and stair climbing. Participation items included work, social activities, quiet

recreation, family and friend roles, religious and spiritual activities, and helping others.









The SIS-16 is a validated short instrument used to assess physical functioning with ADL

and mobility items [221].

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were completed using SAS statistical software. Simple descriptive

statistics were used to describe demographics and outcomes scores for the entire sample.

Additional descriptive data delineated by success or failure of increasing to the next

walking classification was examined. Baseline characteristics of the 64 people who

completed the study with initial gait speed of < 0.8 m/s included demographics, stroke

characteristics, and baseline outcome measures. T-tests were utilized to determine

significant differences in activity and participation (SIS) between those who succeeded

and who failed to increase to the next walking classification at three months post-stroke.

Results

Baseline demographics for the 64 participants are presented in Table 3-2. The

average age of the sample was 71.03 (10.64). Those successful in increasing to the next

ambulation classification were significantly younger than those who failed (p = .0023).

The entire sample included 54.69% males and 78.13% were white. All other

demographic characteristics and data related to participation and retention of participants

specific to the Kansas City Stroke Registry are reported elsewhere [8].

Mean baseline gait speed was 0.50 (0.16) m/s for the entire sample, 0.51 (0.17) m/s

for those who succeeded and 0.49 (0.16) m/s for those who failed to increase to the next

ambulation classification (p = 0.689). At three-months, gait speed for the entire group

was 0.68 (0.24) m/s. As anticipated, a significant difference was detected for three month

gait velocity scores between those who succeeded (0.82 (0.25) m/s) and failed (0.56

(0.16) m/s) to proceed to the next ambulation classification (p < 0.0001).









Table 3-2. Baseline characteristics for participation with initial gait speed < 0.8 m/s
(success = advancing to a higher ambulation classification)


Success


Demographics
Sample Size
Age, Year
Male Sex, n (%)
Race (White), n (%)
Stroke Characteristics
Orpington Prognostic Score
NIH Stroke Score
Right Hemisphere (%)
Left Hemisphere (%)
Brain Stem/Other (%)
Stroke Type, Ischemic (%)
Baseline Measures
Barthel Index
Folstein MMSE
Geriatric Depression Scale
10 Meter-Walk, m/s at
Baseline


64
71.0 (10.64)
35 (55%)
50 (78%)

3.51 (0.84)
6.62(3.33)
34 (53%)
24 (38%)
4 (9%)
57 (89%)

40.16 (20.1)
26.45 (4.23)
4.61 (3.29)
0.50 (0.16)


29
66.72 (9.29)
16(46%)
22 (44%)

3.67 (0.89)
6.76(3.46)
15 (44%)
9 (38%)
3 (83%)
25 (44%)

40.17 (19.5)
26.31 (3.72)
4.59(3.61)
0.51 (0.17)


Fail


35
74.6 (10.48)
19 (54%)
28 (56%)

3.38 (0.78)
6.50 (3.27)
19(56%)
15(63%)
1 (17%)
32 (56%)

40.16(21)
26.57 (4.67)
4.63 (3.06)
0.49 (0.16)


Values are mean (SD) when appropriate

The proportion of participants who succeeded or failed to transition from one

ambulation classification to the next is documented in Table 3-3. The highest proportion

of participants who transitioned to the next classification had initial gait speed of less

than 0.4 m/s; 63% of the household ambulators increased to the limited community

ambulator classification. In contrast, only 38% of those initially considered a limited

community ambulator (0.4 0.8 m/s) advanced to the community ambulation

classification. In all, 45% of the sample was successful and 55% failed to increase to the

next ambulation classification at three months.

Three-month outcomes associated with gait velocity are presented for the entire

sample in Table 3-4. Age was significantly different between those who were successful

and who failed to transition to the next ambulation classification. Therefore age was

controlled for at the < 0.100 level, as it is common that adjustment variables are retained


p value


0.0023
0.9434
0.6902

0.176
0.763

0.1530

0.6920

0.998
0.804
0.960
0.689









in the model at a lower significance level than that of the main factors. Equal variance

was established for all values except for the SIS-16 measure for the entire group.

Therefore t-tests were deemed appropriate and equal (pooled) p-values were used except

for the SIS-16 with the Satteerthwaite unequal variance p-value used. After controlling

for age, there were significant differences in SIS measured mobility and participation

between those who succeeded and failed to advance to the next ambulation classification

(p < 0.05). SIS ADL/IADL approached significance at 0.0524. When controlling for age

and stratifying by baseline gait speed, those with initial gait velocity of < 0.4 m/s

demonstrated significant differences in SIS ADL/IADL, mobility, social participation,

and SIS-16 measures between those who succeeded and failed (p < 0.05) (Table 3-5). In

contrast, when age was controlled for and initial gait speed was between 0.4 m/s and 0.8

m/s, only participation scores were significantly different between those who succeeded

and those who failed to progress to the next ambulation classification.

Table 3-3. Proportions of success/fail for transitioning to next ambulation classification
between baseline and 3 months
Initial Gait Velocity in m/s All
Success Fail
Total n (%) < 0.4 (Household) 12 (63%) 7(37%)
0.4-0.8 (Limited Community) 17 (38%) 28 (62%)
_Total 29 (45%) 35 (55%)

Table 3-4. Three month outcomes for entire sample
Success Failure p value p value^
Sample Size 29 35
SIS ADL/IADL 77.8 (14.1) 69.6 (19.0) 0.0589 N/A
SIS Mobility 77.6 (2.2) 65.5 (16.1) 0.0015 0.0359A
SIS Participation 68.2 (8.6) 52.9 (20.6) 0.0031 N/A
SIS 16 81.3 (11.2) 71.6(16.5) 0.0076 0.0844A
^p-value after adjusting for age when age is significantly different at the < 0.100 level










Table 3-5. Three month outcomes stratified by gait speed
Success Failure p value p value^
< 0.4 m/s at Baseline
Sample Size 12 7
SIS ADL/IADL 75.5 (15.2) 51.4(12.5) .0026 N/A
SIS Mobility 77.1 (11.4) 50.5(10.9) <.0001 N/A
SIS Participation 66.1 (15.2) 42.9 (19.6) .0100 N/A
SIS 16 67.2 (12.5) 46.7 (9.8) <.0001 N/A
0.4 0.8 m/s at Baseline
Sample Size 17 28
SIS ADL/IADL 79.6 (13.5) 74.2 (17.7) .2891 N/A
SIS Mobility 77.9 (13.1) 69.3 (14.9) 0.0565 .2215^
SIS Participation 69.7 (21.0) 55.5 (20.5) .0308 N/A
SIS 16 81.8 (12.7) 67.6 (13.7) .1756 .0718^
^p-value after adjusting for age when age is significantly different at the < 0.100 level

Discussion

Gait speed is a valid and reliable assessment used frequently in elderly and post-

stroke research [9, 39, 40]. In the hopes of determining what is a clinically meaningful

change in gait speed, researchers have attempted to determine relationships between gait

speed and functional abilities [9, 10, 184]. Perry et al. and Lord et al. have previously

examined gait velocity classifications dependent on home and community ambulation in

the post-stroke population [9, 10]. Potter and colleagues demonstrated a relationship

between ADL performance and gait speed in an elderly population with various

diagnoses [184].

This secondary analysis is the first study to examine the association between actual

changes in post-stroke gait velocity and the reciprocal impact on performance of ADLs

and IADLs and social participation as measured by the SIS. Our results validate

ambulation classification in both research and clinical rehabilitation settings, and

specifically validates the prior classification developed by Perry et al. [9]. Additionally,

our results show that a clinically meaningful change in gait speed, as represented by an









increase to the next ambulation classification, was significantly associated with increased

activity and participation scoring, particularly for those with the slowest baseline gait

velocity.

Those who successfully transitioned to the next ambulation classification were

significantly younger then those who did not (p = 0.0023). When age was controlled for,

those with baseline gait speeds of < 0.4 m/s demonstrated the greatest gains in activity

and participation. Among those who walked less than 0.4 m/s, there were significant

differences in SIS ADL/IADL, mobility, participation, and SIS-16 scores found between

those who were successful and who failed to advance to the next ambulation

classification. This may be attributable to the fact that those with greater deficits had

more opportunity for improvement and there were less ceiling effects in the measures.

After age was controlled for in the less impaired walking group, there was

significant difference in participation, between those who did and did not successfully

progress to the next classification. SIS participation items include higher level home and

community activities. Increased gait velocity was clearly attributable to increased

abilities to complete higher level tasks at home and in the community. A significant

difference in age contributed to mobility and SIS-16 scores. After controlling for age, the

SIS-16 approached significance, but likely was related to the assessment of higher level

ADLs and mobility. The lack of other significant findings is probably due to the

participants' high degree of independence at baseline and subsequent ceiling effects of

the measures.

Stratifying by gait speed decreased the sample size, possibly decreasing the

detected differences between groups. Other post-stroke changes may have also impacted









ability to complete ADLs, IADLs, mobility, and social participation. The severity of

residual deficits is an additional component of post-stroke gait speed and activity and

participation; side of the lesion, medical complications, rehabilitation days, assistive

devices, caregiving, and overall support all play a role in performance of post-stroke

ADLs (including mobility) and IADLs and social participation.

Research competed by Potter et al. may provide some rationale for our specific

findings [184]. The authors noted that some participants demonstrated greater gait speed

but not greater ADL performance. They concluded that some had difficulties specific to

upper extremity ADL and IADL activities that were not reliant on gait. Therefore no

relationship between ADLs and gait speed existed. Additionally, all of their study

participants walking between 0.35 m/s and 0.55 m/s were independent in all ADLs. Our

average baseline gait velocity was 0.50 (0.16) m/s for the entire sample, therefore,

independence in ADLs would be expected for our participants, particularly for those

walking initially walking greater than 0.4 m/s.

An important strength of this study is that the included participants are derived

from a large parent study of community living stroke survivors. This is a clinically

significant group because even though they have returned home, they still have limited

ambulation and other stroke related deficits. Additionally, the assessors were blinded

regarding intervention or control placement and all assessments were standardized. There

are also limitations. Duncan et al. reports study limitations related to the intervention and

possible bias in self-report because the control group participants knew their treatment

assignment [8]. In future studies, we will assess the impact of post-stroke gait speed

changes using a continuous measure rather than ambulation classification.









Clinically meaningful changes in gait speed are important in rehabilitation clinics

and research. Rehabilitation goals often include increases in gait speed and endurance.

The results of this study indicate a significant impact of gait velocity on performance of

ADLs, IADLs, mobility, social participation, and SIS-16 scores making increased gait

speed an appropriate goal. These results are very relevant as they validate the ambulation

classification previously portrayed by Perry et al. [9] and represent a clinically

meaningful change in gait speed; encouraging the use of ambulation classification for

goal setting as it is related to overall increases in activity and participation. We have

demonstrated that a clinically meaningful change in gait speed is related to highly

significant improvement in all domains, particularly for social participation. Such

clinically meaningful gait speed changes may have a profound impact on overall quality

of life and life satisfaction as both have been negatively associated to restriction of

activity and participation [179, 180].














CHAPTER 4
FEAR OF FALLING AFTER STROKE

Introduction

Stroke is the primary cause of disability in the United States and is the third leading

cause of death in the country for those over 65 [2-4]. The American Heart Association

reports that stroke is a common neurological event occurring in 700,000 people a year

[159]. Those surviving a stroke are often left with sensory, cognitive, motor, and balance

impairments which negatively influence mobility and other activities of daily living

(ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) [222-224]. Fall rates increase

due to post-stroke mobility deficits [78] and are considered the most common medical

complication after stroke [166]. The annual 30% [49] incidence of falls in the community

dwelling elderly population rises to 73% within the first six months post-stroke [79].

Those who fall post-stroke may be prone to developing fear of falling. The development

of fear of falling, with the cascading consequences of further mobility disability and

declines in activity and participation may be related to an overall decrease of

independence and quality of life [56, 170].

There is currently an abundance of research regarding falls after stroke and fear of

falling in the community dwelling elderly, but there is little specific to how people

describe the experience of fear of falling after stroke or how fear of falling develops

among this population. Fear of falling has been operationally defined for this study as "a

developed and lasting concern about falling related to a loss of confidence in balance

abilities and mobility and is often related to an avoidance of activities that he/she remains









capable of performing" [113, 140-143]. The incidence of fear of falling is still unclear

with researchers reporting fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly ranging from

29%-92% for those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% for those without a recent fall

[46, 70, 113, 115, 144-152]. Fear of falling incidence may rise after stroke due to

increased fall rates and declines in physical ability and mobility.

Fear of falling has been associated with declines in performance of ADLs and

IADLs, decreased participation, and community integration [43, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152,

189-192]. It has also been related to declines in mobility, stair climbing, vision, general

health status, depression, and poor life satisfaction, [10, 56, 113, 140, 147, 186], all

negatively influencing general well-being and life satisfaction [193]. In addition, 20% to

55% of those with fear of falling have reported activity restriction [42, 43, 113, 114, 143,

148, 186, 187, 225-230]. Activity restriction has been independently related to increased

health care utilization, social isolation, depression, and caregiver burden and decreases in

health, functional status, and independence; resulting in overall decline in quality of life

and life satisfaction [10, 43, 56, 113, 140, 143, 147, 149, 151, 152, 179, 180, 186, 189].

Activity restrictions related to functional deficits, falls, and fear of falling may result in

reduced levels of independence and increasing need for additional care in the home [4].

Such decreases in abilities may be associated with increased caregiver burden, strain, and

depression [4, 79, 154]. Informal caregivers of people who have fallen report decreased

social activity, increased stress, and increased burden [79, 154].

This study is a secondary analysis of existing qualitative and quantitative data

obtained from a larger study [11]. The objectives of this study were (1) characterize post-

stroke fear of falling as described by participants during the first six months following









discharge home; (2) explore the relationships between fear of falling and performance of

ADLs, IADLs, and depression; and (3) examine the relationship between fear of falling

and caregiver depression, burden, and coping.

Methods

Design

This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate fear of falling

in a population of veterans discharged home post-stroke. Participants who discussed fear

of falling were identified in the sample enrolled in the larger study. Content analysis was

used to identify descriptors that characterize fear of falling across six months after

discharge home post acute stroke. Patton describes content analysis as the process of

identification, coding, and categorization of the primary patterns in qualitative data [231].

Quantitative data were obtained from standardized outcome measures collected from

stroke survivors and their caregivers at one and six months.

Sample

All veterans and caregivers included in this study met the inclusion criteria to

participate in the larger study. The larger study included a total of 132 participants, 42

(32%) of these participants were identified with fear of falling at one or six months and

were included in the sub-study. The inclusion criteria for veterans to be involved in the

larger study were: (1) member of one of three ethnic groups (Caucasian, African

American, or Puerto Rican Hispanic), (2) discharged directly home from an acute care

unit following a stroke, (3) a Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) of 18 or higher and able

to verbally communicate at discharge, (4) have a caregiver willing to participate, and (5)

sign a consent form or have the consent form signed by a proxy. Inclusion criteria for the

informal caregivers were: (1) family or friend who the stroke survivor identified as a









primary caregiver, (2) able to communicate verbally, (3) willing to participate and sign a

consent form. Exclusion criteria for both veterans and caregivers was the inability to

communicate or unwillingness to participate. Inclusion criteria for this sub study were:

(1) male; (2) described some aspect of fear of falling during the interviews at one or six

months after discharge home. Each participant gave informed consent prior to

participation in the larger study through methods approved by the University of Florida

(UF) Health Science Center Intuitional Review Board (IRB) and the Veterans' Affairs

Subcommittee on Clinical Investigations (VA SCI). This secondary analysis was

approved by the UF IRB and VA SCI as an exempt study using existing data.

Data Collection

Data for the larger study were obtained to develop stroke recovery trajectories for

stroke survivors and their caregivers after discharge home following acute stroke for

three ethnic groups: African American, White, and Puerto Rican Hispanic. The larger

study is a longitudinal multi-site cohort study that includes qualitative and quantitative

data derived from participant interviews and responses to questionnaires. Demographics

were collected and baseline assessments were completed at the time of discharge. The

study was designed so that each stroke survivor was interviewed for approximately 50

minutes. Qualitative data were obtained during at home, in-depth, semi-structured

interviews with the stroke survivors at one and six months. Interviews were completed

with the stroke survivor first; probing questions were presented to capture stroke related

disability and recovery. Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim, verified,

and entered into QSR N6, a software application designed to assist with qualitative data

analysis [232].









Fear of falling was not part of the formal assessments. Participants instead

spontaneously talked about fear of falling as an important part of managing their daily

lives and their experiences post stroke. Transcriptions of all interviews at one and six

months for all 132 participants in the larger study were transferred into a word processing

document to enable identification of those who discussed fear of falling and concerns

about falls, balance, and stability.

Identification of participants with a fear of falling was conducted via a semantic

content analysis of the qualitative interviews. During reviews of interviews, the following

word list was developed from the text. These words were then used to search all word

documents: fall, fell, balance, trip, stumble, wobble, wabbly, slip, dizzy, dizziness, walk,

walking, walker, cane, crutches, crutch, fear, fearful, afraid, scared, worry, worried.

Participants were identified for inclusion in this sub study when they specifically

stated they were fearful or used statements/words regarding concern, confidence, or fear

related to falling, balance, or mobility. A qualitative research specialist validated this

review of qualitative data and selection of participants with fear of falling. A second

dataset was created that included all one and six-month interviews for participants

identified as fearful. This dataset of interviews was coded to identify themes related to

the experience of fear of falling.

The interviews for those identified as fearful of falling were coded in N-6 to

identify themes derived from the interviews. All coding was validated by a rehabilitation

health care professional. Characterizations, quotes from participants, and recorded

observations were used to identify three main recurrent themes that were refined during

analyses. The three initial coding themes were "physical", "psychosocial", and









"strategies for managing fear of falling". Each code included sub-codes that have been

listed in the coding structure found in Table 4-1. Content analysis was completed to

identify phrases and sentences under this coding structure. A phrase or sentence could be

coded under more than one primary or secondary theme.

Table 4-1. Coding structure for qualitative interviews
Primary Theme Secondary Themes
Falls as a Physical Paralysis/hemiplegia
Event Fell at time of stroke
Balance/stability
Dizziness
Decreased participation
Injury (such as hip fracture or head injury)
Talk about falls (stumble, trip, wabble, etc)
Fearing Falls Fear, afraid, concern
Caregiver afraid will fall
Afraid of injury
Strategies for Walker/cane/WC/wall/other
Managing Fear of Relies on others
Falling Being careful


In addition to the qualitative interviews, stroke survivors completed standardized

measures to assess activity performance of ADLs and IADLs and depression. Caregivers

also completed standardized measures of depression and caregiver burden. Most often,

caregivers and stroke survivors were not interviewed with each other in the room.

Outcome Measures

Demographic data were collected at baseline for each stroke survivor and caregiver

included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Stroke survivor demographic data

included age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, income, and comorbidities

recorded in their medical records. Baseline standardized assessments included the

Functional Independence Measure (FIM) to assess functional status and the Mini Mental

Status Exam (MMSE) [233, 234] to measure cognitive status.









Functional status

The FIM was utilized to measure functional status at baseline and was repeated at

one and six months. The FIM is the most widely used method of assessing functional

ability in persons with disability. Reliability and validity of the FIM have been

established [235, 236]. The FIM consists of 18-items and responses are scored on a 7-

level ordinal scale with six subscales: self-care, sphincter control, transfer capability,

locomotion, communication, and social cognition [235]. The FIM was utilized as a

measure of severity of disability and functional status change over time.

The Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) was used to measure IADLs. The FAI is a

valid and reliable measure used to better assess normal living activities that occur among

community dwelling adults [237]. The FAI is composed of 15 items and three major

subscales: domestic chores, leisure/work, and outdoor activities. Scores range from 0

(inactive) to 45 (very active). Wilkinson et al. [224] defined intact IADL function with an

FAI score of over 15.

Cognitive status

The MMSE, a standardized test used to evaluate basic cognitive abilities, assessed

mild to moderate cognitive impairment for the stroke survivors [233, 234].

Depression

Stroke survivor and caregiver depression was assessed using the Geriatric

Depression Scale (GDS). The GDS has been used with the elderly population and those

who are cognitively impaired. It is a 30-item scale with dichotomous variables (yes, no).

Reliability, internal consistency, test-retest validity, and concurrent validity have all been

established for the GDS [238]. Higher scores indicate increased levels of depression.









Caregiver demographics, burden, and coping

Demographic data on caregivers included age, gender, race/ethnicity, education,

and relationship to patient. Caregiver burden was measured using the Sense of

Competence Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ contains 27 items with three different

subscales: satisfaction with the care recipient, satisfaction with one's own performance as

a caregiver, and consequences of involvement in care for the personal life of the

caregiver. Each item is scored using a four point Likert type scale; burden is determined

by summing the three scales. Higher scoring indicates higher levels of burden

experienced by the caregiver. The three subscales and the aggregate burden score have all

been demonstrated to be both valid and reliable for use with stroke survivors.

The Sense of Coherence (SOC) questionnaire is a global measure of the ability to

mobilize adaptive coping resources and is used as a measure of coping ability. The SOC

is a 13-item, self-report scale which has been utilized in over 20 countries [239, 240].

The items on the scale are on a Likert-type scale, and possible scores on the SOC range

from 13-91, with higher scores indicating better ability to cope. This scale has

demonstrated strong internal validity, reliability, and test-retest correlations. Specifically,

Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) has ranged from 0.74 to 0.91 and the test-retest

correlations for 12-month follow-ups ranged between 0.54 and 0.78.

Analysis of Quantitative Data

Quantitative data were used to describe the sample and to explore outcome

measures. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographic

characteristics and performance of ADLs and IADLs, depression, and cognition for those

who did and did not discuss fear of falling. A chi-square was completed to examine the

proportions of participants who reported fear of falling at one month and six months post-









stroke. Additional descriptive statistics for caregivers delineated by stroke survivor fear

of falling status are included.

Results

Description of Sample

The larger study enrolled 132 participants. Overall, 42 (32%) participants discussed

fear of falling at either one or six months and 90 (68%) did not. See Table 4-2 for

demographics of those with and without fear of falling.

Table 4-2. Baseline data for those with and without fear of falling (FoF)
Measures No FoF During 6 Months FoF During 6 Months
n 90 42
Age 65.62 (9.68) 67.50 (11.93)
White 29 (32%) 19 (45%)
AA 34(38%) 16(38%)
PR Hispanic 27 (30%) 7 (17%)
Values are mean (SD) when appropriate

A total of 33 (25%) participants were identified as fearful at one month. Nine

additional individuals described fear of falling at month six (7%). Thirteen participants

(10%) discussed fear of falling at both one and six months. Therefore, 20 participants

(61%) who reported fear of falling at one month did not discuss fearful at six months. In

total, 22 participants (17%) described fear of falling at month six (13 were fearful at one

and six months plus 9 new participants discussed fear at six months). See Table 4-3 for

demographics and baseline data for participants with fear at one and six months.

Relationships Between Fear of falling, Functional Status, and Depression

To explore the relationship between fear of falling, functional status, and

depression, we used descriptive statistics to provide a profile for stroke survivors with

fear of falling using data on ADLs, IADLs, depression, and cognition. See Table 4-4 for

the mean scores and standard deviations of the FIM, FAI, MMSE, and GDS scores for









the 42 unique individuals with fear of falling and the 90 who did not discuss fear.

Participants demonstrated consistent increases in FIM and FAI scores from baseline and

one month to six months scores regardless of fear of falling status. T-tests were

completed to assess differences between those with and without fear of falling. There

were no statistical differences for any assessment scores between those who did and did

not discuss fear of falling. The participants with fear of falling are slightly older and

demonstrate a somewhat lower functional status. Depression and cognition scores for

those who did and did not discuss fear of falling did not appear to differ.

Table 4-3. Baseline/discharge data for those discussing fear of falling at one and six
months
Month 1 FoF Month 6 FoF
33 FoF at 9 New FoF at 6 13 FoF at 1 and 22 Total FoF at 6
Month 1 Months 6 Months Months (9 + 13)
n 33 (25%) 9(7%) 13 (10%) 22(17%)
Age 64.58 (10.42) 78.22 (11.45) 68.08 (8.34) 72.23 (10.76)
White 15(45%) 4 (44%) 6 (46%) 10(45%)
AA 11(33%) 5 (56%) 3 (23%) 8 (36%)
PR Hispanic 7 (21%) 0 (0%) 4 (31%) 4 (18%)
MMSE 26.52 (2.40) 25.44 (3.97) 26.92 (2.90) 26.65 (3.20)
FIM Motor 73.10 (11.89) 74.56 (11.26) 74.69 (12.04) 74.63 (11.45)
FIM Cog 31.18(3.25) 31.22 (3.47) 31.84(3.34) 31.59(3.32)
FIM Total 104.27 (14.20) 105.78 (11.64) 106.54 (2.9) 106.23 (13.17)
(AA = African American, PR = Puerto Rican)

In addition, we examined scoring of individual FAI and FIM items specific to

activities that may be directly affected by fear of falling. Specifically we reported scoring

for "social occasions" and "walking outside for > 15 minutes" on the FAI and the

"walk/wheelchair" and "stairs" items from the FIM. See Table 4-5 for specific FAI and

FIM items for those who did and did not discuss fear of falling. Findings indicate that

those with fear of falling scored somewhat lower on all FIM and FAI individual items at

all assessment times. T-tests compared differences and only the FIM "stairs" item was









statistically significant different between those with and without fear of falling. Such a

result would not be uncommon in an elderly population, and those post-stroke would be

assumed to have increased difficulty with stair climbing. Changes in IADLs were

reflected in the qualitative interviews. Some participants talked about falls at home, often

in the bathroom, while performing basic ADLs. However, more often participants

commented on falls and fear of falling during higher-level activities, such as walking

around a store, community outings such as church or social gatherings, and physical

activities such as stair climbing. Thus IADLs and stair climbing were more likely

impacted by fear of falling in this higher functioning post-stroke group of participants.

These patterns of decreased performance in ADLs and IADLs for those with post-stroke

fear of falling warrant future research to better understand the impact on activity,

participation, and general quality of life.

Table 4-4. Baseline/discharge data and outcome measures for those with and without fear
of falling
Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months
n 90 42
Age 65.62 (9.68) 67.50 (11.93)
Baseline
FIM motor 75.71 (17.40) 73.40 (11.64)
FIM cognition 31.14 (4.18) 31.19 (3.26)
FIM total 106.86 (20.47) 104.60 (13.57)
MMSE 26.76 (3.35) 26.29 (2.79)
Month 1
FIM motor 80.46 (15.59) 78.86 (11.75)
FIM cognition 32.27 (3.47) 31.19 (3.85)
FIM total 112.73 (17.66) 110.05 (13.54)
FAI 30.54 (10.44) 27.26 (10.58)
MMSE 26.60 (3.05) 26.76 (2.54)
GDS 8.84 (6.59) 9.33 (6.76)
Month 6
FIM motor 82.84 (13.54) 82.69 (8.31)
FIM cognition 32.45 (3.72) 32.33 (2.95)
FIM total 115.30 (15.59) 115.03 (9.83)
FAI 33.13 (11.29) 31.50(11.40)









Table 4-4. Continued table
No FoF FoF During 6 months
MMSE 27.17 (3.82) 26.53 (3.18)
GDS 8.76 (6.92) 9.03 (5.98)
Of the 33 participants who discussed fear of falling at month one, 13 (39%)

continued to demonstrate fear of falling at month six. See Table 4-6 for frequency counts.

A chi-square test was calculated examining the proportions of participants who were

identified as fearful of falling at month 1 and who continued to be fearful at month 6. A

significant interaction was found (X2, p< .05), and those with fear of falling at month one

were likely to demonstrate fear of falling at month six, see Table 4-7.

Table 4-5. Scoring of FAI and FIM items for those with and without fear of falling
Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months
n 90 42
Baseline
FIM, walk/wheelchair 5.78 (1.44) 5.48 (1.40)
FIM, stairs 4.41 (2.34) 3.74 (2.30)
Month 1
FAI, social occasions 2.50 (1.32) 2.26 (1.27)
FAI, walking outside 2.90 (1.38) 2.60 (1.38)
FIM, walk/wheelchair 6.17 (1.30) 5.76 (1.19)
FIM, stairs 5.50 (1.87) 4.64 (2.08) *
Month 6
FAI, social occasions 2.84 (1.28) 2.78 (1.20)
FAI, walking outside 2.97 (1.31) 2.61 (1.44)
FIM, walk/wheelchair 6.39 (1.16) 6.08 (1.16)
FIM, stairs 5.88 (1.75) 4.97 (1.95) *
* Statistically significant at the < 0.05 level

Table 4-6. Frequency counts of fear of falling at one and six months
FoF at 6 Months Total
No FoF FoF Missing
FoF at Month 1 No FoF 90 9 99
FoF 16 13 4 33
Total 106 22 4 132

Table 4-7. Proportions of those with and without fear of falling and chi square
Month 1 Month 6 X2


Fear of Falling 25% 17%
No Fear of Falling 75% 83%


.000









We also examined the relationship between fear of falling and caregiver depression,

burden, and coping, see Table 4-8. Caregiver results are delineated by stroke survivor

fear of falling status. There were no significant differences in caregiver scoring in

depression, burden or coping skills between those providing care for those with and

without fear of falling (p > 0.05). However, in the interviews, it was common for

caregivers to comment on fears related to stroke survivor falls and injury. Additionally,

many stroke survivors indicated dependence on caregivers as a strategy to prevent falls.

Table 4-8. Comparison of caregivers for participants with and without fear of falling
Measures No FoF FoF During 6 months
n 90 42
Caregiver Age 59.80 (14.10) 59.38 (11.83)
Month 1
GDS 6.62 (6.17) 6.97 (5.65)
SCQ 51.64 (10.02) 50.08 (12.57)
SOC 71.42 (13.37) 71.13 (16.65)
Month 6
GDS 5.99 (5.57) 6.38 (5.63)
SCQ 51.89 (11.76) 52.44 (11.99)
SOC 70.54 (13.40) 71.53 (13.69)

The Experience of Fear of Falling Post-Stroke

Qualitative findings are described in this section. Initially, three major theme

headings of "physical", "psychosocial", and "strategy" were used for the coding of the

qualitative interviews. However, after a review of the qualitative interview data and

content analysis, it became evident that the development of fear of falling is a process,

one that often impacts everyday life. Therefore, we present the characterization of fear of

falling as the process that reflects the way stroke survivors experience fear of falling in

their everyday lives. Data indicated that the beginning of the process was often the first

sustained fall that usually occurred at the time of the stroke. Participants discussed

themes related to: bodily changes that influenced falls and fear of falling, experiences









related to a pervasive fear of fall and injury, and the impact of fear of falling on activity

and everyday life. The unpredictability of falls and the resultant general acceptance of

fear became evident, making strategies to manage falls and fear of falling necessary.

Each of these themes are described below. See Table 4-9 for original content analysis

frequencies derived from 33 month one interviews and 22 from month 6 interviews.

Table 4-9. Content analysis frequencies (derived from 55 qualitative interviews)
Primary theme Secondary Themes Frequency
Falls as a Paralysis/hemiplegia 15 27%
Physical Event Fell at time of stroke 22 40%
Balance/stability 21 38%
Dizziness 17 31%
Decreased participation 14 25%
Injury (such as hip fracture or head injury) 6 11%
Talk about falls (stumble, trip, wabble, etc) 45 82%
Total from 55 interviews 140 occurrences
Fearing Falls Fear, afraid, concern 32 58%
Caregiver afraid will fall 16 29%
Afraid of injury 6 11%
Total from 55 interviews 108 occurrences
Strategies for Walker/cane/WC/wall/other 35 63%
Managing Fear Relies on others 9 17%
of Falling Being careful 27 49%
Total from 55 interviews 152 occurrences

Onset of falling with the stroke event

Falling at the time of a stroke is a common experience and maybe a harbinger of

development of fear of falling. For some, having a fall signaled a possible second stroke,

thus fear of falling and fear of another stroke became intertwined. Others discussed the

fall at the time of the stroke and the experience of laying on the floor without someone to

help them. Fear associated with a possible fall continued as individuals were concerned

about falling in the future and being left on the floor for substantial periods of time. One

participant stated "Yes, I fell. It was horrible; I lost control of my left arm, and my hand,









my left foot. They failed me and that's why I fell." Others said "When I had the stroke, I

was, I couldn't walk. I had to crawl and if I tried to stand up at all my legs and things, just

like that (unintelligible), sit down quick or you would fall over" and "Well, when I fell, I

knew I had a stroke and I was in such a bad shape. I was sweatin', the worst kind of

sweat and I asked the Lord."

Some stroke survivors who fell at the time of their stroke were living with the fear

of another stroke and of future falls. One participant commented, "I was scared of falling,

you know, uh it's sorta like it was the other stroke, you know?" These participants

equated the two and feared both. They realized a future stroke may further limit their

abilities and independence. However, the fear they live with daily may limit activity

performance and in itself cause increased dependence. These early experiences of falling

with stroke onset represent the early stages of development of fear of falling.

Experiencing the changed body

Another part of the process of developing fear of falling is related to experiencing

the changed body. The residual motor deficits related to mobility were of great concern to

many participants. Changes in movement and ability of the lower extremities were

frequently described. Individuals discussed not being able to move the same as before the

stroke, and how this negatively impacts mobility, adding to the fear of falling. For

example, participants made several statements about fearing their legs would no longer

function properly. Some said, "My legs give out real fast", "I fear, I fear a little that my

legs don't fail me", and "No, that's what I, I mean, well, as I told you before, you always

worry about a leg failure or that, right?" Others stated, "Oh, am I tired. I'm tired. Legs

just bow, buckle underneath me", "I'll be walking and all of a sudden I'm making love to

the pavement", and "Let's see, after I walk so long (long pause) the feeling that any time









now, the hip and leg are gonna give out and I'm gonna fall, so I watch where I walk so

that if I would fall, I wouldn't fall into something too expensive (laughs)."

Bodily changes were also related to the loss of balance, stability, and strength. For

example, one man stated, "Uh, the only problems I can think of I'm having now is

balance... around me I have to hold onto things, so it's a balance problem and I'm,

sometime I'm tipping and leaning and, prone to fall down." Many talked freely about

paralysis and hemiplegia, or general changes to their body, most often impacting balance

and strength. Another commented, "Well, weak in the knees still weak, have to walk

more slowly and seems like sometimes I get a little wobbly cause I'm so weak and I

haven't got all my strength back yet." Interestingly, some participants discussed concerns

related to their balance, but did not specifically discuss falls or fear of falling. For

instance, one man stated, "The only thing that concerns me is my balance, sometimes I

lose my balance a little bit, that's about it, nothing else because the balance, it isn't all

right." This may be important when utilizing fear of falling assessments, as participants

may worry about balance, but not connect the concern to fear of future falls.

Participants also discussed dizziness as a common aspect of the changed body. For

many, dizziness became a part of everyday life, making falls and fear of falling very

common. When feeling dizzy, participants would discuss the need to curb walking or

other activities and their need for assistance to maintain their balance and prevent a fall.

As an example, one man stated "I get dizzy and I start falling down", and others stated "I

am insecure when I walk around the house, because I get dizzy, and I start falling face

down. My nervous system doesn't help me ... and it's not the same" or "Helped my wife









in a lot of things ... but now I can't, because now ... now I get dizzy and I start falling

face down, I can't I'm not stable, I don't feel self-secured."

The participants who experienced post-stroke bodily changes often developed

unpredictable episodes of imbalance, instability, and dizziness. These changes were often

related to hemiplegia, paralysis, and other post-stroke bodily changes and were reflected

in their discussions of insecurity in mobility and subsequent falls and fear of falling.

A pervasive fear of the unpredictable

Participants often described a pervasive sense of fear of falling. Some specifically

talked about being afraid of a fall in the future. When the interviewer asked "What are

your greatest concerns about your body now?" a participant stated "Fear of falling ... I

think that's most concern of everybody is falls." Others commented that "My greatest

concern, that I don't fall, that I don't have another stroke" and "That is my fear, well, that

I could fall. That is what, what they look for, that I don't fall. Because in order to get up

afterwards is hell." Another stated "I fear a little that my legs ... that my legs don't fail

me" and a different man said "One feels afraid of falling and even dying because I can

get hit by something. I fell and almost hit my head, and thank God, I hit my butt instead."

Some participants avoided the use the words 'afraid' or 'fearful' in relation to falls.

Instead, individuals often talked about having a concern about falls, balance, or safety.

One standard interview question asked participants about their concerns post-stroke,

many discussed issues related to balance, stability, dizziness, falls, safety, and walking.

Some stated, "Trouble with balance, but I'm not about to fall" or "The only thing that

concerns me is the balance, sometimes I lose my balance a little bit but that's about it,

nothing else."









Still others talked about fear of falling and not feeling safe. Safety therefore became

an issue for participants while at home and in the community. One man said, "I don't feel

safe because the people there run around. And I don't feel safe because I sit in a corer,

and I tell you, they can trip you over." and another stated "I didn't feel safe 'cause I

didn't know if I was goin' to fall or what."

Participants characterizing fear of falling often talked about the fear of sustaining

future fall related injuries. Some made the following comments: "Ummm ... I worry

because there have been times where I have tripped and nailed myself" and "I'm afraid

to. I'll lose my balance. That's a long ways down. The fall wouldn't hurt you, it's just the

sudden stop (laughs) ... That ground's hard. Like I say that fall ain't gonna hurt ya."

Of most concern were hip fractures and head injuries. For example, some stated,

"Cause once you fall, could break a hip" and "I think it's falling like it it's it's falling, all

the time that's your worst fear, it's falling and you might hurt or break a leg, or or or or

you might uhh break a hip or something, I think you're more conscious of it yeah."

Participants described genuine concern about being hurt after sustaining a fall and the

subsequent impact on function, one commented, "Uh huh, it worries me; I can fall and

hurt myself bad, or hit my head and make it worse than it is."

Those who discussed a fear of falling tended to discuss fears and concerns related

to falls, future falls, and safety issues. While many participants specifically and openly

discussed fear of falling, many others only admitted to concerns about balance and

stability, not addressing actual fear. Those who communicated fears about future falls

were also likely to discuss fear of future injuries. For these individuals, the fear of falling,

and the prevention of falls often became a part of everyday life.









Falls as an everyday life experience

Participants discussed how falls became a frequent event and a common concern,

often part of every day life. For example, one man said, "Sometimes I fall down, but I'm

used to that now" For some, it seems that falls and fear of falling became all consuming.

Regardless of the frequency of falls, fear of falling became a constant worry for some.

Falls as a common occurrence were expressed in the following statements: "I always fall

on the stairs" and "I'd make about four steps and I fall down" or "I worried about those

steps out there every time I fall it's been on those steps"

Some participants were concerned they would fall while out in the community and

they addressed the embarrassment of a public fall. One individual commented, "Yeah. Uh

huh. Do something that I find difficult to do, is not be embarrassed when you stumble and

watch when you're going somewhere." They were also concerned about how they looked

while walking around and seemed to be worried about the stigma related to falls and

decreased mobility. One man discussed the following situation: "What worries me is that

I had the experience that I fell down, I fell down on a street, someone called 911 and they

picked me up because when I fell I had lost my conscience, because I have unbalance in

my legs, I fall down."

Strategies for managing fear of falling

Because fear of falling became an all consuming issue for some participants, talk

about strategies for the prevention of future falls and management of fear of falling was

common. Many participants discussed limiting everyday life activities, such as ADLs and

IADLs at home and out in the community. One participant said, "You know, I was, I, I'm

generally, well, no I wasn't a real religious fella or anything like that but I did go to

church occasionally with my wife on Sunday, y'know. But uh, I, in fact the last time I









went to church with her I lost my complete balance as we were walking' out o'church,

because of the fall problem I have, and I almost knocked an old lady down. So that was a

concern for me and I wouldn't go back to church. Y'know, since the stroke I've lost

confidence" Another man commented, "Well, well, like I tell you, I stutter, I stutter

more, I wobble and uh that's why I don't, I don't get out in the streets to much, I could, I

have enough energy to go walk and more but I don't" Others discussed limiting higher

level skills, for example, "Well, now I can't (laughing), now it's impossible for me to

climb a ladder. Now I can't do it because I can't get up the ladder (unintelligible), I fall."

Participants also discussed the use of assistive devices such as walkers, canes, and

wheel chairs to reduce falls and feel secure in their environment. As an example, one man

said, "Yeah, I use a cane ... ahhh ... just to ... for protection like in, so I don't fall.

Because, you know, somewhere along the line there was times when my leg felt like it

was going to give out, but it didn't." and another stated, "I keep my cane because I

never know whether one of my legs is gonna decide to give out, so I keep my cane with

me." Other individuals expressed their use of assistive devices with the following

quotations, "Like that cane. Once I, I got it set right by the door over there, 'cause I go

out that door, I'll grab that cane, keep my balance ... And when I get out the door I got

things I can hang onto but once I get away from it I can't. I gotta have that cane. So I

gotta have that cane handy" or "Mainly the only reason I use the walker is for balance."

Interestingly, some even used the furniture or walls as an alternative to assistive devices.

One participant stated, "I feel safe, like I say, the only thing that I am, ahh, really

concerned about in here is after I walk so long that my hip starts giving away and then I

might fall into somebody of up against something and break something, so I watch that.









If I have a banister, I feel, great, hold on to the banister," and an interviewer commented,

"At times, it was noted that he was unsteady on his feet and often used the furniture for

balance."

Participants also discussed where they used assistive device. Some commented on

using a device at the store or out in the community, but not at home. For example, "Yeah,

when I go in stores I carry my cane, and if I didn't I'd probably fall" and another, "I got a

walker in there that I use whenever I go up the hospital. Here in the house I really don't, I

use a cane occasionally, but you have the wall here, everything's close, see, y'know."

Others indicated reliance on others as an additional strategy utilized to reduce falls

and manage fear of falling. One man stated, "I was setting' there goin' to the left like that,

kept slidin' to the left, cause the left side's gone. It was in these here foldin' chairs. She

pulls hers right up side of me, leans up there before so I can lean against her, instead of

falling' out of the chair ... Yeah, she's sitting' on the left and she slid her chair right up

against mine, put her shoulder there where I can lean against her, keep me a slidin' out,

falling' out of this chair." Many discussed dependence on their caregivers or others for the

maintenance of balance and the prevention of falls. A participant referred to his caregiver

and said, "Oh, sure, grabbin' my hand, helping' me help straight up and down, keeping' me

from falling she'll walk along side of me every now and then, and, when I need her, you

can tell you know why I'm a little more off balance." Others commented, "Well my

beliefs are that I never will walk alone, I can't be alone at any time", "I'm afraid of

falling when she's not here. I may hurt myself ... Yeah, it makes a difference when she

is here, I walk around and all that." and "Well, yes, he helps me get ready to go to the









bathroom, because sometimes I fall." One stated, ... I want someone beside me to tell

me things and ... At least to prevent me from falling because the last time I fell."

Some caregivers were in the room during the interview and interjected information

about falls and their fear of the stroke survivor falling in the future. Caregivers made the

following comments, "I'm afraid he's going to fall again", "We don't want him to fall",

and "Cause I'm afraid he'll fall and wouldn't be able to get up." Stroke survivors were

aware of their caregiver's surveillance of possible falls and attempts to decrease falls

incidence. For instance, one stroke survivor commented, "My wife keeps attention when

I walk, if I fall or something", and another said, "She was watching me, to see if I was

gonna fall." Still others stated, "Well, they help me to stand up and walk, right? And they

fear that I might fall, right?" Another said, "During the day my wife is here with me in

the house, here .. paying attention to everything I do, too. If go walk over there she's

paying attention that I don't fall or anything."

A general tool for the management of fear of falling and a reduction of future falls

was simply to "be careful" or "cautious". For example, one man said, "I don't know how

to describe it but I think that you, uhh, are more cautious and more careful like, uhh,

umm, in you, when you in bathrooms, if you're in the shower and, uhh, you have to use,

sit down in the chair so that you won't fall." Being "careful" while performing specific

mobility and other everyday activities was commonly addressed. Being cautious was

expressed in the following excerpts: "It's about the same, only thing you do is um, make

sure you don't trip over nothing' an' try your best to sit some place where you don't fall

off of nothing and "I walk slower. I take my time now ... but I, uh, try my best to avoid

tripping. I just slow down." Another said, "Yeah, I, uh, had to be very careful 'cause, uh,









I first come home, home from the hospital, I'd try to get outta' my chair and I fell a

couple a' times." One man said, "I have to be careful when I walk. I might fall."

Many different strategies were utilized for the prevention of falls and the

management of the complexity of fear of falling. Participants discussed use of assistive

devices, reliance on others, and simply being cognizant of their own personal fall risks.

To summarize, quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to explore the

characterization of fear of falling post-stroke. The main themes derived from the data

conceptualize the process of developing fear of falling, often beginning at the time of the

stroke or initial fall and continuing as individuals live with fear of falling as part of their

daily lives and learn to manage their new bodies and strategize against future falls and

fear of falling.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the development of fear of

falling in the post-stroke population. It is also the first qualitative studies on fear of

falling in the elderly. Characterization of post-stroke fear of falling has been derived from

analyses of the qualitative interviews and descriptions of participants using standardized

assessment scores. It is evident that falls and fear of falling are difficulties faced by many

of those who have sustained a stroke, often on a daily basis. Our findings are based on

secondary analyses and indicate that further study of the development of post-stroke fear

of falling and its management at home and in the community is warranted.

Many of the participants discussed falls and fear of falling during the first one to

six months post stroke. The experience of falls is supported by research completed by

Forster and Young who reported a 73% incidence of falls in the first six months post-

stroke [79]. Our reports of fear of falling were less than expected when compared to the









community elderly population. Researchers have indicated fear of falling in 29%-92% of

those recently sustaining a fall and 12%-65% of those without a recent fall [46, 70, 113,

115, 144-152]. In our study, 25% of participants (33 of 133) in month one and 32%

(42/132) of all participants described fear during the first six months post stroke.

The lower fear of falling incidence may be related to the high functioning of our

participants. At discharge, the mean FIM motor score for all participants, regardless of

fear of falling, was 74.98 (15.79) with a range of 13 to 91, and 46% of all participants

scored over 80 (maximum score is 91). This increased to 69% at month one and 74% at

month six, indicating a high functioning group of post-stroke participants.

Incidence may have been impacted by an all male veteran sample. Women are

more likely to report a fear of falling [43, 144, 148, 155, 156] and men may underreport

fear due to a perceived negative stigma related to their fears. Fear of falling may be

underreported because those with the greatest fear may not partake in research [155, 241]

and others may fear institutionalization [143, 150].

Characterization of Fear of Falling

Participants discussed the characterization of fear of falling. Through review and

analysis of the interviews and exploration of post-stroke fear of falling functional status,

we have determined five important factors to include in the characterization:

(1) The time of the initial fall: participants often discussed a first fall coinciding

with their stroke. Participants realized they were at risk for both future falls and strokes

and indicated fear of decreased abilities and subsequent dependence on others. This

provides a preliminary exploration of the timing and development of fear of falling after

stroke. Timing may be related to the impact fear has on everyday life and important when

evaluating assessments and the efficacy of interventions to reduce future falls and









management of fear of falling. In preparation for discharge, clinicians need to talk with

patients about fear of falling and how they will manage safely at home.

(2) Post-stroke related changes in the body: resultant declines in balance, stability,

strength, and dizziness due to hemiplegia and paralysis were commonly discussed. Yates

and colleagues previously determined increased fall risks related to post-stroke motor

impairments [78]. This sample of post-stroke participants discussed decreased mobility

due to the stroke and how it related to increased risk of future falls and fear of falling.

Rehabilitation clinicians and researchers need to develop interventions to support

mobility and safety among those patients with post-stroke fear of falling.

(3) Pervasive fear of future falls: many naturally discussed fear of falling, falls, and

balance issues when discussing post-stroke concerns and barriers. In contrast, others

discussed concern or trouble regarding balance, stability, strength, or their "legs giving

out" but did not admit to actual fear. Perhaps the stigma of "being afraid" was

overwhelming, especially for an all male veteran population. Researchers have

demonstrated increased likelihood of female fear of falling, perhaps our all male veteran

population were embarrassed to admit such fears [43, 144, 148, 155, 156]. The difference

in levels of fear may impact future research when assessing fear of falling evaluations

and preventative interventions. Participants not admitting to being fearful may require

different interventions to manage issues related to fear of falling and future falls.

(4) Every day fear of falling: it became evident that different levels of fear of

falling existed within this population. There is an apparent continuum of fear of falling in

this post-stroke population. It ranges from a healthy sense of fear to an overwhelming, all

encompassing, everyday, obtrusive fear that is reflected in a "constant awareness" of falls









risks and reported changes in activity and participation. The development of fear of

falling may have great impact on every day life, for some, it becomes all-consuming.

Assessing fear of falling and openly discussing it with patients and their caregivers may

help them manage more efficiently after discharge.

(5) Strategies for the management of fear of falling: participants discussed

individual techniques to manage falls and fear of falling. Many discussed restricting or

modifying performance of ADLs, IADLs, and social participation due to fear. Activity

restriction is common in those with fear of falling in the community dwelling elderly [43,

113, 114, 143, 148, 186, 187, 225-230]. Those with fear of falling related activity

restrictions may become increasingly dependent on caregivers. This may impact stroke

caregiver burden and depression. The use of assistive devices such as walkers, canes, and

wheel chairs was also common. Others discussed being careful or cautious to manage

falls and fear of falling. Overall, the development of strategies indicate that a certain,

normal, healthy fear may reduce future falls. Because fall risks are multidimensional [52,

65-67], the independent use of multiple strategies represents the need for

multidimensional and individualized interventions.

In summary, the process of fear of falling may begin at the time of the fall, often

coinciding with the stroke, possibly making the time of the development of fear an

important issue. We found that mobility issues related to changes in the body greatly

impact falls and fear of falling, and that the actual fear or concern may differ dependent

on individuals, ability levels, and possible fear of stigma or embarrassment. Interestingly,

participants naturally developed strategies to manage fear of falling and their fall risks.









Perhaps this was necessary because for some, fear of falling became an all consuming

aspect of life, impacting activity and participation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. Our study primarily used qualitative data

derived from a larger study. We were restricted to a convenience sample. Common to all

qualitative studies, generalization is not possible, although findings may be informative

across similar populations.

This study was a secondary analysis of naturally occurring data. There was not a

specific interview question related to falls, fear of falling, or post-stroke mobility, and we

did not include a standardized fear of falling or falls incidence assessment. We were

dependent on the use of natural conversation elicited from questions regarding changes

since stroke, concerns about bodily changes, and barriers to everyday life to determine

those who would be considered fearful of falling. Although this naturalistic approach

derives significant amounts of information, all of those with fear of falling may have not

been considered in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, thus possibly reducing

detection of fear of falling incidence.

Future Research

Because falls and fear of falling are unpredictable, it is of great concern to those

managing life post-stroke. This preliminary research provides insight into the

development of fear of falling after discharge home post-stroke and the impact it has on

activity and participation. It is evident that some people develop a fear that promotes safe

completion of activities. However, others are likely to engage in a cycle of restricted

activities and then experience further functional losses. This plays into the "vicious

circle" portrayed by Delbaere and colleagues who suggested a pattern between reduced









activities and decreased muscle strength and balance, leading to further declines in ADLs,

increased falls incidence and fear of falling, and completing the circle with additional

declines in activities [114]. Li et al. discussed the existing relationship between fear of

falling and falls efficacy, the effect on balance and physical disability, continuations in

deteriorated health, and future falls and development of fear of falling [194].

Clearly, more interventions are needed to assist stroke survivors and their

caregivers to effectively manage this cycle. It is important to acknowledge the number of

individuals who return home with significant residual mobility losses. This was a

relatively high functioning post-stroke population, and still many discussed fear of falling

and the necessity to manage it with assistive devices, activity restriction, and decreased

functioning.

Future studies are needed to better define the natural history and experience of the

development of post-stroke fear of falling in the home and community. The utilization of

standardized fear of falling assessments, such as the Falls Efficacy Scale or the

Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, both recently found valid and reliable for

the post-stroke population, [173-175] combined with qualitative data will provide more

complete explanations to better understand fear of falling development. This dual

qualitative and quantitative research study provided preliminary information to justify

future research. Addressing the impact of fear on quality of life and life satisfaction will

be an important step in determining the impact of fear on post-stroke management.

Important future research will include the advent of a fear of falling intervention specific

for the post-stroke population. Likely, interventions to manage fear of falling and reduce






76


fall rates will require individual treatment plans and will need to address the very issues

described by these participants.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

The objective of this dissertation was to utilize secondary data from two larger

studies to examine the impact of post-stroke gait velocity and fear of falling on activity

and participation [8, 11]. In Chapter One, we presented a conceptual framework as the

foundation for this research (Figure 1-2). The framework indicates that those who sustain

a stroke are likely to demonstrate sensory, cognitive, and motor impairments. These

impairments are reflected by mobility disability, specifically changes in gait speed and

fear of falling. Through reviews of the literature, we speculated that change in gait speed

or the development of fear of falling would be associated with change in stroke survivor

performance of activities of daily living (ADLs) (including mobility), instrumental

activities of daily living (IADLs), social participation. Additionally we believed that such

changes in activity and participation, and therefore independence, would impact caregiver

depression, burden, and coping.

Our findings indicate that mobility disability was demonstrated in both of our post-

stroke populations. The first study examined clinically meaningful changes in gait speed

and the second study explored fear of falling. In support of our model, we observed that

those who portrayed a clinically meaningful increase in gait speed demonstrated

improved performance in ADLs, IADLs, mobility, and social participation. We also

described how a post-stroke veteran population characterizes fear of falling in the first six

months after discharge. In addition we examined post-stroke activity, participation, and

depression in those discussing fear of falling.









In the fist study, we measured the proportions of participants who successfully

advanced to a higher ambulation classification, demonstrating a clinically meaningful

change in gait velocity. Forty-five percent of our total sample transitioned to a higher

classification; however, after baseline gait speed stratification, 63% of those walking

slower than 0.4 meters/second (m/s) and 38% walking between 0.4 and 0.8 m/s advanced

to the next ambulation classification. This indicates that those with the slowest speed, and

possibly the most severe mobility deficits, have the greatest potential for gains in gait

velocity.

We also compared the differences in Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) measured

ADLs/IADLs, mobility, social participation, and physical functioning (SIS-16) dependent

on success or failure of advancement to a higher ambulation classification. After

controlling for a significant difference in age, all SIS scores for those with baseline gait

velocity less than 0.4 m/s were statistically different. In contrast, only the participation

score was significantly different for those with baseline gait velocity between 0.4 and 0.8

m/s. This suggests that a transition to the next ambulation classification is a clinically

meaningful change because it is related to increased function, particularly for the initially

more impaired stroke survivors. This is important as it validates the previous ambulation

classification developed by Perry and colleagues [9]. More importantly, it confirms the

use of ambulation classification in clinical and rehabilitation research settings. It indicates

that using ambulation classification is appropriate for goal setting and that increased gait

velocity is associated with highly significant increases in performance of activity and

participation.









In the second study, we used qualitative and quantitative data to examine how post-

stroke veteran populations characterize fear of falling and the relationship between fear

and ADLs, IADLs, and depression. Additional exploration of caregiver burden, coping,

and depression for those caring for post-stroke individuals with fear of falling was

completed. It is evident that those with fear demonstrated slightly lower scores for almost

all Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Frenchay Activity Index (FAI), and

depression scores. This trend was also established for individual FIM and FAI items and

caregiver burden, depression, and coping.

Content analysis and review of the qualitative interviews verified that many

participants naturally discussed post-stroke falls and fear of falling. We discovered that

participants characterize post-stroke fear of falling with five main factors, including: (1)

the importance of the time of the initial fall, (2) how post-stroke related changes in the

body were associated with falls and fear of falling, (3) the pervasive fear and concern of

future falls, (4) a continuum of everyday and unpredictable fear of falling, and (5) the

natural strategies utilized and discussed by participants for the management of fear of

falling and the prevention of falls.

These qualitative findings can be related to the examination of data retrieved from

the standardized assessments. Participants discussed concern regarding falls during

performance of both ADLs and IADLs, but it seems that participants were more likely to

discuss fear of falling in regard to the performance of higher level activity at home and in

the community. A small difference in FAI scores between those with and without fear of

falling is apparent. This implies that fear of falling had a bigger impact on higher level

IADLs in this relatively high functioning post-stroke population. Of additional









importance, participants naturally developed strategies to prevent falls and manage fear

of falling. This may impact future interventions to decrease falls and fear of falling in this

population. Programs may need to be individualized dependent on the need and abilities

of the post-stroke individual. This exploration warrants future research of post-stroke fear

of falling.

In conclusion, we studied two post-stroke community dwelling populations, and

although all participants lived at home, we established that many continued to

demonstrate mobility impairments. The present studies provide support of the negative

impact of post-stroke mobility changes on activity and participation. Further study of gait

speed change and its influence on activity and participation is warranted. Natural

recovery may play an important role in improvement, but further evidence is needed to

determine appropriate interventions and timing of intervention to best enhance gait

velocity and consequently improve activity, participation, and quality of life. Future

research is necessary to better understand the true trajectory of the development of fear of

falling after stroke. It is evident that fear of falling development was very individualized

and our results provide preliminary data demonstrating that prevention strategies also

need to be individualized. This preliminary research provides foundational data to

continue investigation into post-stroke gait velocity and fear of falling, its impact on

everyday life, and future interventions. Collectively, this research will promote our

understanding of post-stroke mobility and its impact on functional independence.















APPENDIX
EVIDENCE BASED TABLE FOR FEAR OF FALLING AND ACTIVITY
RESTRICTION















Table A-1. Fear of falling and activity restriction
Article I Design I Sample I Fear of falling assessment Functional Activity Measures Results

Arfken, et al., Cross- 890 "At the present time, are you very Mobility activities 29% reported some FoF
1994) sectional fearful, somewhat fearful, or not Social activities Of those very FoF
[43] analysis of fearful that you may fall (again)?" Depression o 48%not satisfied with life
data from a Life satisfaction o 25% depression
prospective Frailty measure o decreased mobility and social activities
study 1 year o 91% reported at least one characteristic of
follow up frailty
o 85% exhibited diminished balance
o 22% were delayed in getting up after
sustaining a fall
o 85% impaired balance
Brouwer, et al., Cross- 50 Activity-specific Balance Human Activity Profile Those with FoF had lower ABC scores,
2004 sectional 25 with FoF Confidence decreased balance, slower gait speed, lower
[225] study and activity limb weakness, and decreased physical
curtailment and health.
25 without FoF Similar activity profiles
Bruce, et al., Cross- 1500 females "Are you afraid to fall?" "Do you participate in any sports 34% afraid of falls
2002 sectional "Do you limit any household recreation or regular physical More FoF in sedentary woman (45.2%)
[230] analysis of activities because you are exercise?" FoF was independent risk factor for
baseline data frightened you may fall?" "Please list any sports recreation nonparticipation in physical activity
from a Do you limit any outside activities or regular physical activity, Analysis suggests FoF affected activity levels
longitudinal because you are frightened you including walking, that you at a predisability stage in those with mildly
study may fall?" undertook in the last 3 months" impaired mobility
(duration / frequency)
Chandler, et al., Secondary 149 male "Would you say that you are Mobility performance 43% of the high risk participants were very
1996 analysis of veterans somewhat afraid, not afraid, or very PADL and IADL afraid of falling
[113] data from a afraid of falling?" Change in inside and outside 55% had prior fall
prospective activity Walk time and life space reduced in nonfallers
observational who were very afraid of falling
study of falls Increased depression in those very afraid of
risk falling
Decreased functional reach and activity for
those very afraid of falling
Decreased walk time, mobility skills,
functional reach, IADL, PADL, lifespace,
and activity levels if a faller AND very
afraid to fall
Walk time and IADL were independent
contributors to FoF













Table A-1. Continued
Article Design Sample Fear of falling assessment Functional Activity Measures Results
Cumming, et al., Secondary 418 at baseline Falls Efficacy Scale ADLs Those with lowest confidence in balance had
2000 data form a and 307 at 12 "Are you afraid of falling?" Use of community services increased risk of falls, poorer health,
[143] prospective months significant declines in ADLs, lowest QoL
OT home
visit falls
prevention
study
Delbaere, et al., Cross- 225 (and 221 Survey of Activities and Fear of Survey of Activities and Fear of Frequent fallers more likely to avoid FoF
2004 sectional for longitudinal Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE) related activities
[114] study and portion) Scale Scale Mobility tasks avoided the most by those with
longitudinal Physical Performance Test FoF
study 1. i i i. .i FoF activity restriction was correlated with
physical performance, forward excursion of
the center of pressure and muscle strength
FoF and activity restriction predicted falls at
the one year follow up
Stated FoF is a "vicious circle of frailty"
where individuals cease activities, but
become more fearful and continue to reduce
activity, decreasing mobility levels, and
becoming more fearful
Fletcher and Cross- 2,304, all "Limited going outdoors due to fear Minimum Data Set for Home 41.2% restricted activity de to FoF
Hirdes, 2004 sectional receiving home of falling (e.g., stopped using bus, Care 27% sustained previous fall
[229] study care services goes out only with others) Clinical Assessment Protocols Predictive factors of activity limitation
IADLs o Female
o Older
o Need for informal support for IADLs and
ADLs
o Being alone for long periods of the day
o Impaired gait
Howland, et al., Sample 266 "Are you afraid of falling?" Falls history 55% with FoF
1998 survey Social support 56% of those with FoF restricted activity
[148] Fear related to function and social support
Those with restricted activity:
o Did not communicate about falls
o Less social support
o Knew someone who had fallen
Kressign, et al., Base-line 287 Falls Efficacy Scale CESD About 12 of participants demonstrated fear of
2001 cross- Activity-specific Balance 360 turn falling
[228] sectional Confidence Functional reach Those fearful were more depressed and used a
study 10-meter walk walking aid
Single limb stands FoF was correlated to all functional measures
Picking up and object Depression, walking-aid, slow gait speed,
Chair stands being African American related to being
more fearful












Table A-1. Continued
Li, et al., 2003 Cross- 256 Assessed with the Survey of Assessed with the Survey of FoF varied across differing activities of the
[227] sectional Activities and Fear of Falling in the Activities and Fear of Falling in SAFFE
study Elderly (SAFFE) Scale the Elderly (SAFFE) Scale 18% reported "high fear"
Berg Balance Those with high fear more likely to report fear
Functional Reach Test with activities of the SAFFE
Dynamic Gait Index for Fallers had a higher SAFFE score
functional mobility Difference in balance, functional mobility,
IADLs IADLs, and QoL between those with high
Quality of Life via SF-12 and low fear
Those with higher fear engaged in fewer
activities
Murphy, et al., Cross- 1064 "Afraid of falling?" ADLs 24% reported FoF
2002 sectional Those with FoF were asked "did IADLs 19% reported FoF and activity restriction
[187] study the fear cause them to cut down on CESD Highest activity restriction seen in those over
activities?" 80, female, white, poor health status,
dizziness, 5 or more medications, visual
impairment, two or more diseases
Those with FoF and activity restriction were
more likely to be 80 and over, female, 2 or
more disease, slow timed physical
performance, ADL disability, prior injurious
fall, anxiety, and depressive symptoms
Suzuki, et al., Cross- 135 "At the present time are you very Short Form 36 Health Survey Females more likely to express FoF
2002 sectional fearful, somewhat fearful, or not measured health related quality Older participants more likely to express FoF
[226] study fearful that you may fall?" of life and perceived changes in 63.7% were moderately or very fearful of
health status falling
Females: walking and bathing had significant
relationship with FoF
Majority of those who required assist with
ADLs answered "moderately" or "very
fearful"
Those with increased FoF demonstrated
decreased scoring on SF-36 subscales
o Physical problems
o Social functions
o Physical function
o General health perceptions
Yardley and Convenience 224 at baseline "In general, are you afraid of falling Consequence of Falling Scale Nearly half had fallen in previous year
Smith, 2002 sample form and 166 at 6 over?" (CoF) (validated by authors) 57% reported FoF
[186] a pragmatic months Answered: not at all, a little, quite a o Assesses fall related fears of o 46% a little afraid
double-blind bit, very much physical injury, long term o 11% more severe fear
randomized functional incapacity, FoF related activity avoidance increased with
controlled subjective anxiety, and age, female gender, and number of falls in
trial social discomfort. the last year.
Modified Survey of Activities and Each increase of reported FoF was associated
Fear of Falling in the Elderly with an increased in activity avoidance and
(SAFFE) Scale perceived negative falls consequences















LIST OF REFERENCES


1 Stineman MG, Maislin G, Fiedler RC, Granger CV: A prediction model for
functional recovery in stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 550-556.

2 O'Sullivan SB: Stroke; in O'Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ (eds): Physical
rehabilitation: Assessment and treatment; ed 4th. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis
Company, 2001, pp 519-582.

3 AHCPR: Clinical practice guidelines: Post-stroke rehabilitation, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 1995.

4 Han B, Haley WE: Family caregiving for patients with stroke. Review and
analysis. Stroke 1999; 30: 1478-1485.

5 Lyons RA, Lo SV, Littlepage BN: Comparative health status of patients with 11
common illnesses in Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994; 48: 388-390.

6 Fried LP, Ettinger WH, Lind B, Newman AB, Gardin J: Physical disability in
older adults: a physiological approach. Cardiovascular Health Study Research
Group. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 747-760.

7 Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R: Sufficiently important difference:
expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 2005; 25:
250-261.

8 Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, Gollub S, Lai SM, Reker D, Perera S, Yates
J, Koch V, Rigler S, Johnson D: Randomized Clinical Trial of Therapeutic
Exercise in Subacute Stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2173-2180.

9 Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ: Classification of walking handicap in
the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26: 982-989.

10 Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M:
Community ambulation after stroke: How important and obtainable is it and what
measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 234-239.









11 Rittman M, Vogel B, Spring HJ, Boylstein C, Faircloth C, Chumbler NR:
Culturally sensitive models of stroke recovery and caregiving after discharge
home, in HSR&D, Nursing Research Initiative. North Florida/South Georgia
Veterans Health System: Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center: Gainesville,
FL, 2000-2005.

12 Jette AM: Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and
practice. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 380-386.

13 ICF Introduction, 2003, July 4, 2004
http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm?myurl=introduction.html%20&mytitle=I
introduction.

14 Chang JT, Morton SC, Rubenstein LZ, Mojica WA, Maglione M, Suttorp MJ,
Roth EA, Shekelle PG: Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults:
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2004;
328: 680-687.

15 Patla AE, Shumway-Cook A: Dimensions of mobility: defining the complexity
and difficulty associated with community mobility. J Aging Phys Activity 1999;
7: 7 19.

16 Fried LP, Bandeen-Roche K, Chaves PH, Johnson BA: Preclinical mobility
disability predicts incident mobility disability in older women. J Gerontol A Biol
Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M43-52.

17 Guralnik JM, LaCroix AZ, Abbott RD, Berkman LF, Satterfield S, Evans DA,
Wallace RB: Maintaining mobility in late life. I. Demographic characteristics and
chronic conditions. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 845-857.

18 Hirvensalo M, Rantanen T, Heikkinen E: Mobility difficulties and physical
activity as predictors of mortality and loss of independence in the community-
living older population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 493-498.

19 Daley MJ, Spinks WL: Exercise, mobility and aging. Sports Med 2000; 29: 1-12.

20 Katz S, Branch LG, Branson MH, Papsidero JA, Beck JC, Greer DS: Active life
expectancy. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1218-1224.

21 Lennartsson C, Silverstein M: Does engagement with life enhance survival of
elderly people in Sweden? The role of social and leisure activities. J Gerontol B
Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001; 56: S335-342.

22 Fried LP, Guralnik JM: Disability in older adults: evidence regarding
significance, etiology, and risk. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 92-100.









23 Spector WD, Katz S, Murphy JB, Fulton JP: The hierarchical relationship
between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. J
Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 481-489.

24 Kemper P: The use of formal and informal home care by the disabled elderly.
Health Serv Res 1992; 27: 421-451.

25 Hellstrom Y, Hallberg IR: Perspectives of elderly people receiving home help on
health, care and quality of life. Health Soc Care Community 2001; 9: 61-71.

26 Melzer D, Lan T-Y, Tom BDM, Deeg DJH, Guralnik JM: Variation in Thresholds
for Reporting Mobility Disability Between National Population Subgroups and
Studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004; 59: 1295-1303.

27 Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG,
Scherr PA, Wallace RB: A short physical performance battery assessing lower
extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of
mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 1994; 49: M85-94.

28 Ensrud KE, Nevitt MC, Yunis C, Cauley JA, Seeley DG, Fox KM, Cummings
SR: Correlates of impaired function in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42:
481-489.

29 Gill TM, Williams CS, Tinetti ME: Assessing risk for the onset of functional
dependence among older adults: the role of physical performance. J Am Geriatr
Soc 1995; 43: 603-609.

30 Jette AM, Branch LG: The Framingham Disability Study: II. Physical disability
among the aging. Am J Public Health 1981; 71: 1211-1216.

31 Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV,
Studenski S, Berkman LF, Wallace RB: Lower extremity function and subsequent
disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed
alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol
Sci Med Sci 2000; 55. M221-231.

32 Manton KG: A longitudinal study of functional change and mortality in the
United States. J Gerontol 1988; 43: S153-161.

33 Jylha M, Guralnik JM, Balfour J, Fried LP: Walking difficulty, walking speed,
and age as predictors of self-rated health: The women's health and aging study. J
Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M609-617.

34 Cress ME, Schechtman KB, Mulrow CD, Fiatarone MA, Gerety MB, Buchner
DM: Relationship between physical performance and self-perceived physical
function. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 93-101.