Association of Neighborhood Recreation Centers and Poststroke Outcomes in a Population-Based Cohort.
census tract
cognition
depression
recreation
stroke
survivor
Journal
Stroke
ISSN: 1524-4628
Titre abrégé: Stroke
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0235266
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
01
10
2024
medline:
27
9
2023
pubmed:
14
9
2023
entrez:
14
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Higher neighborhood socioeconomic status has been favorably associated with stroke outcomes. This may be due to these areas having more beneficial resources such as recreational centers. We aimed to determine if neighborhood density of recreation centers is favorably associated with stroke outcomes. We conducted analyses of data from the Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi project, a cohort of stroke survivors ≥45 years of age residing in Nueces County, TX (2009-2020). We included non-Hispanic White and Mexican American incident stroke survivors, who were not institutionalized prestroke and completed baseline and follow-up assessments (N=1392). We calculated the density of fitness and recreational sports centers within their residential census tract during the year of their stroke. Outcomes included function (self-ratings on activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living), cognition (modified mini-mental state exam), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and quality of life (abbreviated Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale). We fit confounder-adjusted gamma-distributed mixed generalized linear models with a log link for each outcome and considered interaction with stroke severity. On average, participants were 65 years old, 53% male, and 63% Mexican American. Median recreational centers were 1.60 per square mile (interquartile range, 0.41-3.06). Among moderate-severe stroke survivors, greater density of recreation centers (75th versus 25th percentile) was associated with more favorable function and possibly quality of life (activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, 4.8% change [95% CI, -0.11% to -9.27%]; Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, 3.7% change [95% CI, -0.7% to 8.2%]). Minimal nonsignificant differences were observed among the overall stroke population and those with mild stroke. The availability of recreation centers may be beneficial for poststroke function and quality of life among those with moderate-severe stroke. If further research confirms recreation centers to be beneficial, this could inform rehabilitation following stroke.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Higher neighborhood socioeconomic status has been favorably associated with stroke outcomes. This may be due to these areas having more beneficial resources such as recreational centers. We aimed to determine if neighborhood density of recreation centers is favorably associated with stroke outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted analyses of data from the Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi project, a cohort of stroke survivors ≥45 years of age residing in Nueces County, TX (2009-2020). We included non-Hispanic White and Mexican American incident stroke survivors, who were not institutionalized prestroke and completed baseline and follow-up assessments (N=1392). We calculated the density of fitness and recreational sports centers within their residential census tract during the year of their stroke. Outcomes included function (self-ratings on activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living), cognition (modified mini-mental state exam), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and quality of life (abbreviated Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale). We fit confounder-adjusted gamma-distributed mixed generalized linear models with a log link for each outcome and considered interaction with stroke severity.
RESULTS
On average, participants were 65 years old, 53% male, and 63% Mexican American. Median recreational centers were 1.60 per square mile (interquartile range, 0.41-3.06). Among moderate-severe stroke survivors, greater density of recreation centers (75th versus 25th percentile) was associated with more favorable function and possibly quality of life (activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, 4.8% change [95% CI, -0.11% to -9.27%]; Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, 3.7% change [95% CI, -0.7% to 8.2%]). Minimal nonsignificant differences were observed among the overall stroke population and those with mild stroke.
CONCLUSIONS
The availability of recreation centers may be beneficial for poststroke function and quality of life among those with moderate-severe stroke. If further research confirms recreation centers to be beneficial, this could inform rehabilitation following stroke.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37706339
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.041852
pmc: PMC10530069
mid: NIHMS1926822
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2583-2592Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : K01 NS117555
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL126700
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS038916
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U24 NS107214
Pays : United States
Références
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1091-6
pubmed: 17272767
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 15;16(20):
pubmed: 31618860
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Sep;8(9):E928-E931
pubmed: 27747028
Res Aging. 2014 Jan;36(1):115-42
pubmed: 24465068
J Pediatr Psychol. 2009 Oct;34(9):917-28
pubmed: 19223279
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Oct;238:112515
pubmed: 31473573
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):1887-1894
pubmed: 28089956
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Apr 08;5(2):431-441
pubmed: 33997639
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Oct 30;8:70
pubmed: 18973665
Circulation. 2022 Feb 22;145(8):e153-e639
pubmed: 35078371
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Feb;11(2):e004222
pubmed: 29371220
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 Mar;82(3):283-6
pubmed: 20802211
Prev Med. 2021 Sep;150:106669
pubmed: 34087319
Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Jul;42(14):2035-2042
pubmed: 30676134
Clin Rehabil. 2021 Jul;35(7):1044-1055
pubmed: 33586479
Stroke. 2017 Jun;48(6):1685-1687
pubmed: 28386042
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 12;18(10):
pubmed: 34066049
Stroke. 2019 Nov;50(11):3191-3197
pubmed: 31526122
Stroke. 2003 Jan;34(1):134-7
pubmed: 12511764
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 22;18(4):
pubmed: 33671734
Neurology. 2021 May 25;96(21):e2599-e2610
pubmed: 33910941
Stroke. 2000 Apr;31(4):858-62
pubmed: 10753988
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jun 04;15:528
pubmed: 26040279
J Aging Health. 2021 Jan;33(1-2):101-113
pubmed: 32960717
Neurohospitalist. 2016 Jul;6(3):97-101
pubmed: 27366291
Am J Prev Med. 2022 Aug;63(2):251-261
pubmed: 35361506
Lancet. 2005 Apr 30-May 6;365(9470):1591-5
pubmed: 15866314
Stroke. 2014 Apr;45(4):1096-101
pubmed: 24627112
Disabil Rehabil. 2021 Feb;43(3):331-337
pubmed: 31180726
Epidemiology. 2007 Nov;18(6):800-4
pubmed: 18049194
J Affect Disord. 2009 Apr;114(1-3):163-73
pubmed: 18752852
Circulation. 2021 Feb 23;143(8):e254-e743
pubmed: 33501848
JAMA. 2011 Feb 23;305(8):822-3
pubmed: 21343582
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Jul;31(7):936-947
pubmed: 27681480
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 10;(4):CD010079
pubmed: 24719028