Additional file 1 of Long-term psychological outcomes following stroke: the OX-CHRONIC study
Creators: name: Kusec, Andrea
name: Milosevich, Elise
name: Williams, Owen A.
name: Chiu, Evangeline G.
name: Watson, Pippa
name: Carrick, Chloe
name: Drozdowska, Bogna A.
name: Dillon, Avril
name: Jennings, Trevor
name: Anderson, Bloo
name: Dawes, Helen
name: Thomas, Shirley
name: Kuppuswamy, Annapoorna
name: Pendlebury, Sarah T.
name: Quinn, Terence J.
name: Demeyere, Nele
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Neuroscience
subject: Physiology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: Mental Health

description: Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Neuropsychological assessments, self-report, and carer measures used in OX-CHRONIC with test metrics and cut off scores used to determine cognitive impairment. Where a range of impairment cutoffs are listed, this is due to some neuropsychological assessments have age-specific cutoffs for cognitive impairment. Supplementary Table 2. Mean and frequency statistics of demographic, cognitive, and stroke outcome data for participants that were retained across time points (N = 90) and those who withdrew (N= 15). Supplementary Table 3. Mean and frequency statistics of demographic and cognitive data for participants that were retained up until the OX-Chronic study (N = 105) and those who withdrew at any time point following acute assessment (N = 761). Supplementary Figure 1. Pearson correlations of time post-stroke (in years) to all study outcome variables using Wave 1 data (N = 105). Following false discovery rate corrections, no variable was significantly correlated with time post-stroke. Variables are shown on the x-axis, with values arranged in ascending order from left to right. Correlation values ranged from -0.20 (Digi Span Forward) to 0.22 (Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure-Recall). Supplementary Table 4. Controlled regression output investigating the role of psychological outcomes to stroke-specific (SF-SIS) and general quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) using Wave 1 OX-CHRONIC data (N = 105). Missing data was accounted for using multiple imputation via predictive mean matching. Supplementary Table 5. Descriptive and impairment prevalence statistics per domain on the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) at Wave 1 (N = 98) and Wave 2 (N = 85). Impairment scores were calculated using normative data published in Demeyere et al. (2015). Supplementary Table 6. Descriptive and impairment prevalence statistics per domain using in-depth neuropsychological assessments at Wave 1 (N = 98) and Wave 2 (N = 85). Impairment scores used are shown in Supplementary Table 1. Supplementary Table 7. Chi-square evaluations of whether proportion of individuals impaired differs across time points. False discovery rate adjustments on p-values from chi-square tests. Supplementary Table 8. Descriptive statistics on self-reported and carer questionnaire measures. Clinical cutoff scores are in Supplementary Table 1. WHO = World Health Organization; ADL = Activities of Daily Living; ICECAP-A = ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults; EQ5D-5L = EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels. Supplementary Table 9. Complete case test statistics of neuropsychological assessment, self-report, and carer measures per domain between Wave 1 and Wave 2 (N = 90) including standardized mean difference scores and Cohen’s d effect size estimates. Statistical tests were alpha-adjusted using false discovery rate (FDR) corrections. Distribution-based MCIDs were estimated by calculating percentage of individuals whose difference in scores per measure between Wave 1 and Wave 2 were 0.5 standard deviations (SDs) above or below the mean of each measure at Wave 1. Where available, published anchor-based MCID estimates were used to compare to distribution-based MCIDs (referenced by number). Supplementary Figure 2. Distributions of Stroke Impact Scale subscales in chronic stroke using complete cases at Wave 2 (N = 90). Median points with quantile ranges are shown within boxplots. Higher scaled scores represent better functioning. Scaled scores were highest in the domain of communication (median = 89.29), followed by hand function (median = 85), memory (median = 84.52), activities of daily living (median = 82.50), mobility (median = 80.56), arm function (median = 75), and participation (median = 73.44), with emotions having the lowest self-reported scores (median = 72.22).(DOCX 630 KB)