Assessing environmental barriers by means of the Swedish craig hospital inventory of environmental factors among people post-stroke

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics, N = 34.

Variable	Descriptive measure
Sex, men, n (%)	21 (61.8)
Age, mean (min–max)	68.1 (58–86)
Months post stroke, mean (min–max)	8.0 (6–10)
First-ever stroke, n (%)	29 (85.3)
Stroke subtype
Infarction, n (%)	33 (97.1)
Haemorrhage, n (%)	1 (2.9)
Living condition
Living with partner, n (%)	22 (64.7)
Living alone, n (%)	12 (35.3)
Children living at home, n (%)	3 (8.8)
Housing condition
Multi-family house, n (%)	21 (68.8)
Single-family house, n (%)	13 (38.2)
Mobility device^a,b
Indoors, n (%)	2 (6.1)
Outdoors, n (%)	9 (27.3)
Walking distance^b
0–200 metres	7 (20.6)
201–400 metres	2 (5.9)
>400 metres	24 (70.6)
Independent mobility^b, n (%)	31 (91.1)
Self-rated cognitive impairment
Any cognitive impairment^c, n (%)	19 (55.9)
No of self-rated cognitive impairments^b, mean (min–max)	3.2 (0–20)
Geriatric depression scale (GDS)^d
Total score, mean (min–max)	5.3 (0–19)
Possible depression^e, n (%)	12 (35.3)

^aCane/crutches; rollator.

^bOne missing.

^cStudy-specific self-rated cognitive impairment questionnaire. According to Wendel et al. [21] this assessment has showed cognitive impairment to a greater extent compared to an objective assessment.

^dGDS [22].

^e>5p = possible depression.

Table 2. Environmental barriers as perceived by people who had sustained stroke, N = 34.

	Encountered at all^a	Perceived as large problem	CHIEF-S score^b
Environmental barrier	n (%)	n (%)	Mean (SD)
Attitude/support (5 items)			0.22 (0.48)
Support in the community	2 (6)	1 (3)	0.18 (0.76)
Attitudes in the community	3 (9)	1 (3)	0.21 (0.77)
Support in the home	2 (6)	1 (3)	0.21 (0.84)
Attitudes within the home	4 (12)	1 (3)	0.26 (0.83)
Discrimination	4 (12)	0 (0)	0.24 (0.70)
Service/Assistance (7 items)			0.47 (0.45)
Transportation	9 (26)	4 (12)	1.03 (2.22)
Healthcare	4 (12)	2 (6)	0.26 (0.83)
Help in the home	2 (6)	1 (3)	0.21 (0.84)
Help in the community	1 (3)	0 (0)	0.06 (0.34)
Information	9 (26)	4 (12)	0.97 (2.32)
Personal equipment	3 (9)	2 (6)	0.38 (1.52)
Education/training (n = 13)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.00 (0.00)
Physical/structural (6 items)			0.87 (1.23)
Design of the home	7 (21)	5 (15)	1.09 (2.52)
Natural environment	10 (29)	4 (12)	1.03 (1.99)
Design of the work/school (n = 13)	3 (23)	2 (15)	1.31 (2.69)
Design of the community	6 (18)	1 (3)	0.65 (1.67)
Surroundings	13 (38)	5 (15)	1.32 (2.16)
Technology	1 (3)	0 (0)	0.09 (0.51)
Work/school (3 items)			0.08 (0.27)
Support at work/school (n = 13)	1 (8)	0 (0)	0.23 (0.83)
Attitudes at work/school (n = 13)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.00 (0.00)
Help at work/school (n = 13)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.00 (0.00)
Policies (4 items)			0.18 (0.53)
Business policies	2 (6)	1 (3)	0.12 (0.48)
Education/employment policies (n = 13)	2 (16)	0 (0)	0.23 (0.60)
Services in the community	3 (9)	2 (6)	0.32 (1.41)
Government policies	2 (6)	0 (0)	0.09 (0.38)
Total score			0.45 (0.64)

Note. questions regarding work/school only applicable for 13 individuals.

^aDaily, Weekly, Monthly and Less than each month have been summed due to low frequencies in each category.

^bScore calculated by multiplying frequency with magnitude. Theoretical min-max, 0–8 (higher scores mean more problems).

Table 3. Indicators of content and construct validity of the CHIEF-S in a sample with people who had sustained stroke, N = 34.

	Floor and ceiling effects		Sub-scale correlation with the total score
	% lowest score	% highest score	Spearman coefficient	p-value
Subscale
Attitude/support	73.5	0.0	0.43	0.012
Service/Assistance	55.9	0.0	0.77	<0.001
Physical/structural	38.2	0.0	0.86	<0.001
Work/school (n = 13)	92.3	0.0	0.11	0.704
Policies	82.4	0.0	0.34	0.047
Total score	17.6	0.0

Note. questions regarding work/school only applicable for 13 individuals.

Table 4. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the CHIEF-S in a sample with people who had sustained stroke, N = 34.

	Cronbach’s α		Intraclass correlation
	Raw	Standardized	ICC coefficient (95% CI)	p-value
Subscale
Attitude/support	0.60	0.63	0.86 (0.72–0.93)	<0.001
Service/Assistance	0.40	0.48	0.80 (0.61–0.90)	<0.001
Physical/structural	0.64	0.56	0.83 (0.65–0.92)	<0.001
Work/school (n = 13)	0.00	–	0.00 (–2.71 to 0.73)	0.5
Policies	0.05	0.37	0.00 (–0.86 to 0.48)	0.5
Total score^a	0.80	0.79	0.86 (0.71–0.93)	<0.001

Note. questions regarding work/school only applicable for 13 individuals.

^aNot including items related to Work/School, i.e. based on 19 items.

Wendel K, Risberg J, Pessah-Rasmussen H, et al. Long-term cognitive functional limitations post stroke: objective assessment compared with self-evaluations and spouse reports. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(3):231–239.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gottfries GG, Noltorp S, Nørgaard N. Experience with a Swedish version of the geriatric depression scale in primary care centres. Int J Geriat Psychiatry. 1997;12(10):1029–1034.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar