Impact of treadmill exercise on efficacy expectations, physical activity, and stroke recovery.
Article Type: Report
Subject: Cardiovascular diseases (Risk factors)
Cardiovascular diseases (Prevention)
Cardiovascular diseases (Research)
Exercise (Health aspects)
Stroke (Disease) (Care and treatment)
Stroke (Disease) (Research)
Authors: Shaughnessy, Marianne
Michael, Kathleen
Resnick, Barbara
Pub Date: 02/01/2012
Publication: Name: Journal of Neuroscience Nursing Publisher: American Association of Neuroscience Nurses Audience: Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health care industry Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 American Association of Neuroscience Nurses ISSN: 0888-0395
Issue: Date: Feb, 2012 Source Volume: 44 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 310 Science & research
Geographic: Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number: 278760440
Full Text: ABSTRACT

Stroke survivors are at high risk for cardiovascular mortality which can be in part mitigated by increasing physical activity. Self-efficacy for exercise is known to play a role in adoption of exercise behaviors. This study examines self-reported psychological outcomes in a group of 64 stroke survivors randomized to either a 6-month treadmill training program or a stretching program. Results indicated that, regardless of group, all study participants experienced increased self-efficacy (F = 2.95, p = .09) and outcome expectations for exercise (F = 13.23, p < 0.001) and improvements in activities of daily living as reported on the Stroke Impact Scale (F = 10.97, p = .002). No statistically significant between-group differences were noted, possibly because of the fact that specific interventions designed to enhance efficacy beliefs were not part of the study. Theoretically based interventions should be tested to clarify the role of motivation and potential influence on exercise and physical activity in the stroke survivor population.

**********

Stroke is a significant cause of neurological disability in the United States (Roger et al., 2011) and a major health concern in the older adult population. Stroke survivors remain at high risk for recurrent stroke and cardiovascular morbidity, the leading cause of death in this group (Roger et al., 2011). Regular physical activity and exercise may reduce risk by promoting cardiovascular health and countering the cycle of learned nonuse. However, most stroke survivors, like older adults as a whole, are not routinely encouraged to exercise and often lack means, specific direction, and motivation to exercise in their daily lives. The American Stroke Association (Gordon et al., 2004) published exercise guidelines for stroke survivors recommending 20-60 minutes of aerobic exercise 3-7 days per week, with additional recommendations for adding resistance training, balance, and stretching exercises. However, the real-life implementation of these recommendations is unclear, and the guidelines provide no specific directions for individuals with varying deficit and risk profiles (Gordon et al., 2004).

Self-efficacy and outcome expectations are known predictors of exercise behavior among older individuals, including those who have sustained strokes (King, Baumann, O'Sullivan, Wilcox, & Castro, 2002; Shaughnessy, Resnick, & Macko, 2006). Bandura (1977) differentiates self-efficacy expectations, which are beliefs in the individual's capability to perform a course of action to attain a desired outcome from outcome expectations, which are the beliefs that a certain consequence will be produced by personal action. The social cognitive theory informs us that one's self-efficacy and outcome expectation affects behavior, motivational level, thought patterns and emotional reactions to any situation. The stronger an individuals' self-efficacy and outcome expectations are, the more likely it is that the individual will initiate and persist with a given activity. Efficacy expectations are dynamic and are both appraised and enhanced by four mechanisms (Bandura, 1997): (1) enactive mastery experience or successful performance of the activity of interest; (2) verbal persuasion or encouragement, given by a credible source that the individual is capable of performing the activity of interest; (3) vicarious experience or seeing like individuals perform a specific activity; and (4) physiological and affective states such as pain, fatigue, anxiety, hunger, or dizziness associated with a given activity. These beliefs are essential to the adoption and maintenance of self-care activities of daily living after stroke (Robinson-Smith, 2003).

Regular exercise improves cardiovascular fitness, motor strength, ambulation, and overall function in stroke survivors (Ivey, Ryan, Hafer-Macko, Goldberg, & Macko, 2007; Macko, Ivey, & Forrester, 2005; Macko et al., 2001; Silver, Macko, Forrester, Goldberg, & Smith, 2000; Smith, Silver, Goldberg, & Macko, 1999). Although testing and training strategies have varied, the consistent finding is that individuals with stroke have markedly impaired aerobic capacity, as reflected in reduced V[O.sub.2] peak levels that are approximately half that of age-matched sedentary controls (Ivey, Hafer-Macko, & Macko, 2006; Ivey, Macko, Ryan, & Hafer-Macko, 2005; Mol & Baker, 1991). Individuals with stroke have 1.5- to 2-fold elevated energy requirements for hemiparetic gait (Macko et al., 1997). The combination of poor peak exercise capacity and elevated ambulatory energy demand is termed "diminished physiologic fitness reserve" (McArdle, Katch, & Katch, 1996) and compromises the capacity of stroke survivors to sustain basic mobility activities of daily living (Macko et al., 2001). Over the last decade, major advances have been made in our understanding of the effectiveness of exercise and lifestyle interventions to improve cardio-metabolic health after stroke. However, there remains a need for individuals with stroke to adopt health- and function-promoting activity and exercise behaviors in their daily lives.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether task-oriented treadmill training would influence self-efficacy and outcome expectations over time and whether it would affect performance of community-based physical activity. We hypothesized that participants exposed to treadmill training would (a) have stronger efficacy expectations (self-efficacy and outcome expectations); (b) engage in more community-based physical activity (housework, exercise, recreational activity, and total activity); and (c) report improvements in their physical status, memory, mood, communication, daily activities, mobility, hand function, social activities, and overall recovery after stroke than a control group exposed to stretching exercises only for a matched period of exposure.

Methods

Our randomized controlled trial has been described previously as have findings related to physiological outcomes (Luft et al., 2008; Macko et al., 2005; Ryan et al., 2009; Wheaton, Villagra, Hanley, Macko, & Forrester, 2009). In brief, men and women (older than 45 years of age) with chronic ischemic stroke and hemiparetic gait deficits who had completed all conventional rehabilitation were screened for eligibility. Baseline evaluations included a medical history and physical examination, ECG, blood chemistries, and hematologic examination, Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Participants with heart failure, unstable angina, peripheral arterial occlusive disease, dementia (MMSE [less than or equal to] 23 for those with ninth grade education or more and [less than or equal to] 17 for those with eighth grade education or less), significant aphasia (unable to follow 2-point commands), untreated major depression (CES-D [greater than or equal to] 16), and other medical conditions precluding participation in aerobic exercise were excluded. Gait-safety and cardiopulmonary response to strenuous physical exertion were assessed during a screening treadmill exercise test. Subjects achieving adequate exercise intensities (walking for at least 3 minutes at a minimum of 0.09 meters/second) without signs of myocardial ischemia or treadmill exercise intolerance were enrolled. Subjects then underwent baseline measurements and were randomized to either a 6-month treadmill exercise intervention or an attention-matched control group doing standardized stretching. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by institutional review boards at the University of Maryland and Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center.

Sample

A total of 162 volunteers were screened with 17 excluded because of medical conditions, 6 excluded for functional impairment, 2 excluded as they were still engaged in sub-acute therapy, and 24 excluded because of inability to get to the exercise training facility (e.g., family responsibilities, distant location). A total of 113 individuals were enrolled in the trial (70% of screened volunteers) with 57 randomized to treatment and 56 randomized to attention-matched control. Of those randomized, 20 (35%) dropped out of the treatment group for medical reasons or inability to get to the classes and 22 (39%) dropped out of the control for the same reasons. Thirty-seven participants completed the treatment intervention, and 34 completed the control intervention.

Intervention

The task-oriented treadmill treatment intervention focused on an ultimate goal of engaging the participant in three 40-minute exercise sessions weekly at an aerobic intensity of 60% heart rate reserve. Starting at the individuals' baseline exercise capacity, the duration and intensity of treadmill training were increased every 2 weeks as tolerated to achieve target goal. Under the supervision of a physical therapist, the stretching control group performed 13 supervised stretching movements of major muscle groups on a raised mat table. These activities are the same as those done during traditional physical therapy sessions. Both groups experienced the same duration and number of sessions and spent the same amount of time in the exercise gym over the 6-month trial (Luft et al., 2008; Macko et al., 2005).

Outcome Measures

Descriptive measures were obtained from participants and included age, gender, race, education, and marital status. The remaining outcome measures were completed by participants via structured interview and included the following:

Short Self-Efficacy and Outcomes Expectations for Exercise: The Short Self-Efficacy (five items) and Outcome Expectations (four items) for Exercise scales assess participants' attitudes and beliefs regarding exercise. The self-efficacy measure addresses the most common challenges that older adults with stroke identify with regard to engaging in exercise. The Short Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale asks four questions regarding the respondent's confidence in their ability to perform exercise given a particular barrier circumstance, and responses range from 1 (not confident) to 5 (very confident). The Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale asks the respondent's level of agreement with six statements regarding positive outcomes associated with exercise. Responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Short Self-Efficacy and Outcomes Expectations for Exercise have indicated internal consistency, reliability, and validity (Shaughnessy, Resnick, & Macko, 2004). The measures have consistently been associated with exercise behaviors among stroke survivors.

Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS): The YPAS is a self-report of five categories of physical activity, including housework, yard work, caretaking, moderate physical activity (i.e., exercise including such things as brisk walking, biking, dance, etc.), and recreational activities performed during a typical week. The YPAS includes a wide range of lower intensity activities that older adults often engage in. Participation in each activity (hours/week) is multiplied by an intensity code (kcal/minute) and then summed over all activities to calculate a weekly energy expenditure summary index. The YPAS shows evidence of 2-week repeatability (r = .63, p < .001) and has been validated against several physiological variables that are indicative of habitual activity (Dipietro, Caspersen, Ostfeld, & Nadel, 1993; Pescatello, DiPietro, Fargo, Ostfeld, & Nadel, 1994) and other physical activity surveys (Moore et al., 2008).

Stroke Impact Scale: The Stroke Impact Scale v.3.0 is a valid, reliable, self-report measure that includes 59 items and assesses eight domains (strength, hand function, activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and participation). This measure has been used repeatedly with stroke survivors and has indicated evidence of reliability and validity as well as sensitivity to change over time (Duncan et al., 1999). The final item of the Stroke Impact Scale asks participants to indicate, on the basis of a visual analog scale going from 0% (no recovery) to 100% (full recovery), how much they felt they had recovered from their stroke.

Data Analysis

Mean, median, range, and standard deviations were calculated for all outcome and descriptive variables. Between-group changes from baseline to 6-month follow in the two groups were compared using a 2 (time) x 2 (treatment) repeated measure analysis of variance for all study outcomes. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered significant. The assumption of sphericity was tested using Mauchly's sphericity test and was met for all variables and Box's M statistic was used to test and assure the homogeneity of the intercorrelations.

Results

Of the 71 total participants engaged in the study, 64 participants (90%) completed all baseline and 6-month surveys. The mean age of the participants was 64.3 years (SD = 9.2 years), slightly more than half (56%) were women, 22 (34%) were married, 1 (1%) cohabited, 28 (44%) were unmarried (divorced, separated, never married, or widowed), and the remaining 14 (22%) had missing demographic data. A little over half of the participants were African American (53%; n = 34), with 42% (n = 27) being Caucasian, 1 (2%) Hispanic, and the remaining 2 participants (3%) had missing data. A total of 29 (45%) participants continued their education after high school, 11 (17%) completed high school, 7 (11%) had some high school, 3 (5%) completed grade school, and 14 (22%) lacked educational data.

As shown in Table 1, at baseline overall the participants had high outcome expectations for exercise and believed in the benefits of engaging in exercise with a mean of 4.03 (SD = .69, range 0-5) with higher scores indicative of stronger outcome expectations. Self-efficacy for exercise expectations were not as strong with a mean of 3.54 (SD = 1.07 and range 0-5). This suggests that participants were not strongly confident in their ability to exercise in the face of challenges to exercise (e.g., pain). Participants reported that they engaged in 2,125 minutes (SD = 1,908 minutes) of housework weekly, the equivalent of about 5 hours of housework daily. They reported 185 minutes (SD = 420 minutes) of recreational activity weekly or about 26 minutes of recreational activity daily, and 873 minutes (SD = 1465 minutes) of exercise (moderate intensity physical activity) weekly or approximately 2 hours of exercise daily. On a scale of 0-100%, they perceived their recovery after stroke to be around 20%. The Stroke Impact Scale results suggested that participants perceived a moderate physical impact from the stroke, but minimal impact with regard to memory, mood and communication, ability to engage in daily activities, mobility, hand function and social activities.

After 6 months of three times per week treadmill training or control stretching, all study participants reported a statistically significant improvement in outcome expectations over time (F = 13.23, p < .001, power 95%) and a nonsignificant improvement in self-efficacy expectations over time (F = 2.95, p = .09, power 39%). There was no statistically significant Treatment x Time interaction in outcome expectations (F = .04, p = .84. power 5%) or self-efficacy expectations (F = .27, p = .61, power 8%). Likewise, there was no significant treatment effect on physical activity on the basis of the YPAS. All participants, however, reported a decline in the amount of time they engaged in housework (F = 4.00, p = .05, power 50%).

On the Stroke Impact Scale, participants in both treatment and control groups reported improvement in their ability to engage in daily activities such as shopping, doing personal care, and housework over the course of the 6-month intervention period (F = 10.97, p = .002, power 90%). There was no time or treatment effect on any of the other subscales in the Stroke Impact Scale or on the participant's perceptions of overall stroke recovery.

Discussion

Our original hypotheses were not supported by the results of this study, as we found no differential impact by treatment group on any of the psychosocial outcomes. There was, however, improvement in outcome expectations of all study participants and a trend toward improvement in self-efficacy. It is possible that the lack of treatment effect noted in this study is because the study participants in both groups were exposed to the mechanisms identified by Bandura that are most likely to influence efficacy expectations. Specifically, we know that both groups were exposed to enactive mastery or actual performance of exercise activities under supervision, and all were exposed to seeing other similar stroke survivors exercising in the gym. We did not control the dosing of verbal encouragement given by other participants or the exercise interventionists or explore the sensations and feelings associated with exercise that the participants may have experienced (e.g., fear of falling, pain). This similarity in exposure may have precluded a treatment effect.

The improvement overall in study participants' outcome expectations associated with exercise is important from a clinical perspective. By engaging stroke survivors in exercise activities, regardless of the type of activity, their beliefs in the benefits associated with exercise can be strengthened. This may have important long-term implications with regard to their willingness to engage in and adhere to regular exercise activities over time.

Our inability to improve time spent in all types of physical activity in this study may be because of challenges associated with the measurement of physical activity. As has been noted in prior research there is a tendency to over interpret abilities, particularly when individuals have little experience performing these activities (Branch & Meyers, 1987; Dishman, Darracott, & Lambert, 1992; Paffenbarger, Blair, Lee, & Hyde, 1993; Pols, Peeters, Kemper, & Collette, 1996; Resnick, Ory, Coday, & Riebe, 2005). In this sample, there was not a strong significant relationship between survey reports of physical activity and objective information including [VO.sub.2 max] or number of steps taken on the basis of a Step Activity Monitor (Luft et al., 2008). Given the known increased energy level needed for hemiparetic patients to ambulate, we anticipate that study participants overinterpreted their activity as being at a higher intensity level than may have actually been the case. Ongoing research is needed to help individuals after stroke more accurately interpret and measure their level of activity.

In addition to over reporting the level of physical activity performed, we found that participants generally reported high self-efficacy for exercise. It is not unusual for individuals to report high self-efficacy, particularly when they do not have a lot of experience with the activity of interest, such as exercise (Jones et al., 2005; McAuley et al., 2006; Resnick, Orwig, et al., 2005; Vancouver et al., 2001, 2002). When measuring baseline self-efficacy, future research with stroke patients should consider measuring self-efficacy directly after the individual has performed a timed period of brisk walking. More accurate measurement of self-efficacy is important to better reflect the impact of exercise interventions on these beliefs and to optimally motivate these individuals to engage in regular exercise activities.

It is often anticipated that, by increasing participation in exercise, older adults will be able to engage in their routine physical activities and thus should increase the amount of time spent in those activities. Our findings, as verbally reported in the YPAS, did not support this. Rather, we found a decrease in time in which they performed all activity. The decrease in activity over time was statistically significant with regard to housework. It is possible that participants in both groups simply had less time to engage in household and other activities because of the travel to and from the gym and exercise activities three times per week during the course of the study. Alternatively, it is also possible that they deliberately limited their household activities as they felt that study-related treadmill or stretching exercises represented sufficient physical activity. Another possibility is that they developed an increase in endurance and thus could perform routine activities such as household tasks more efficiently. Future work needs to explore this finding and potential reasons for these changes so that interventions can be altered accordingly. This may have important implications in terms of future interventions. Stroke patients may need help to moderate activity versus rest, or they may need to be reminded of overall physical activity goals and guidance in translating exercise-related gains into free-living physical activity in home and community settings. Although the overall time spent in activity did not change, the study participants in both groups noted a significant improvement in their ability to perform daily activities including personal care, shopping, and household activities. From a physiological perspective, as has been previously reported (Luft et al., 2008; Macko et al., 2005), there was evidence that treadmill training increased fitness, endurance, and physical performance, providing support for this perception. Specifically, those in the treatment group had a 51% increase in peak effort treadmill walking velocity, which was significantly greater than the 11% increase in the stretching group. In addition, the average walking velocity during a 6-minute over ground walk increased by 19% in the treadmill group versus 8% in the stretching group. This may explain their perceptions of improved ability to perform routine activities and the decreased time needed to perform household tasks. Unlike the focus on physiological outcomes (Luft et al., 2008), we did not demonstrate any treatment-related differences in the psychosocial measures. It is possible that getting to the exercise classes three times per week, which involved walking from the parking lot into the gym a distance of approximately two blocks and engaging in either the stretching or treadmill activity, was sufficient to induce improvement in the performance of the routine activities done in the course of a day.

The participants in this study were able to ambulate at least short distances and reported more time spent in physical activity than other groups of community dwelling older adults (Gerdham, Dencker, Ringsberg, & Akesson, 2008; Janney et al., 2008). Despite this subjective report, they indicated that they felt they experienced only a 20% recovery from their stroke. Participant identification of recovery goals was not delineated as part of this study, and thus, we do not know what these stroke survivors considered as important aspects of their full recovery. Focus groups with these stroke survivors suggest that such things as being able to drive and work may be equally, if not more, important to their overall recovery process (Resnick et al., 2008). In fact, when asked why they continued participation in the study, subjects identified numerous benefits that condensed around eight themes: achievement of personal goals, psychological benefits, physical benefits ("feeling better, stronger"), security of exercising with supervision, encouragement from staff, social support from each other, improvements in instrumental activities of daily living, and an intrinsic pull of self-determination (Resnick et al., 2008). From a motivational perspective, it may be useful to identify goals with participants at the beginning and focus exercise interventions directly on achievement of those goals. This may be particularly relevant when focusing on long-term adherence to exercise and activity behaviors.

Limitations

This study was limited by the fact that it included a small group of volunteers who were selected on the basis of their ability to engage in the exercise activities and their willingness to adhere to the program. Consequently, this sample had relatively high self-efficacy and outcome expectations and engaged in more physical activity than might be noted in other groups of community dwelling older adults, particularly individuals after stroke. There are challenges to many of the self-report measures in terms of preventing inflation of scores. In addition, it is

possible that participants responded in a socially desirable manner.

Despite these limitations, our results provide useful guidance for future research considering self-efficacy and other psychosocial outcomes after stroke. We suggest careful attention to some of the measurement challenges identified in this study with regard to reporting of efficacy expectations and physical activity. It may be particularly helpful, especially when gathering baseline efficacy data, to ask the participant to respond to self-efficacy and outcome expectation questions after they performed the given activity. In addition, we believe that it may be helpful to explore with stroke patients their physical activity goals and encourage them to work toward those currently recommended to help decrease stroke risk. In so doing, we may be able to establish optimal exercise interventions for adults after stroke that are sustainable over time and thereby decrease their risk of recurrent strokes and improve quality of life.

Implications

Nurses who care for stroke survivors should be aware of the established benefits of exercise and current exercise recommendations for these patients. Nurses can take initiative to make sure that stroke survivors have an exercise program on discharge from acute, subacute, and rehabilitation settings and appropriate home therapy referrals as needed. Nurses in any setting with these patients can be instrumental in bolstering of efficacy expectations, both self-efficacy and outcome expectations, as these are valuable nursing interventions. Providing education and encouragement and addressing unpleasant sensations, such as pain, depression, or anxiety, can boost confidence and determination for stroke survivors and their families to initiate and maintain an exercise regimen that will enhance recovery and aid in controlling risk for a future vascular event.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center Baltimore Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center; the University of Maryland School of Medicine Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine; the National Institute on Aging Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (P30-AG028747); and Maryland Exercise and Robotics Center of Excellence.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Branch, L. M., & Meyers, A. R. (1987). Assessing physical function. Geriatric Medicine. 3, 29-51.

Dipietro, L., Caspersen, C. J., Ostfeld, A. M., & Nadel, E. R. (1993). A survey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Medicine Science Sports and Exercise. 25(5), 628-642.

Dishman, R., Darracott, C. R., & Lambert, L. T. (1992). Failure to generalize determinants of self-reported PA to a motion sensor. Medicine Science Sports amt Exercise. 24, 909-910.

Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999). The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30(10), 2131-2140.

Gerdham, R, Dencker, M., Ringsberg, K., & Akesson K. (2008). Accelerometer measured daily physical activity among octogenerians: Results and associations to other indices of physical performance and bone density. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 102, 173-180.

Gordon, N. E, Gulanick, M., Costa, F., Fletcher, G., Franklin, B. A., Roth, E. J., ... Stroke Council. (2004). Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Subcommittee on Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention; the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the Stroke Council. Stroke. 35(5), 1230-1240. doi:10.1161/01.str.0000127303.19261.19

Ivey, F. M., Hafer-Macko, C. E., & Macko, R. F. (2006). Exercise rehabilitation after stroke. NeuroRx. 3(4), 439-450.

Ivey, F. M., Macko, R. F., Ryan, A. S., & Hafer-Macko, C. E. (2005). Cardiovascular health and fitness after stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 12(1), 1-16.

Ivey, F. M., Ryan, A. S., Hafer-Macko, C. E., Goldberg, A. R, & Macko, R. F. (2007). Treadmill aerobic training improves glucose tolerance and indices of insulin sensitivity in disabled stroke survivors: A preliminary report. Stroke, 38(10), 2752-2758. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.490391

Janney, C. A., Richardson, C. R., Holleman, R. G., Glasheen, C., Strath, S. J., Conroy, M. B., & Kriska, A. M. (2008). Gender, mental health service use and objectively measured physical activity: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003-2004). Mental Health and Physical Activity. 1(1), 9-16.

Jones, F. R, Harris, R, Waller, H., & Coggins, A. (2005). Adherence to an exercise prescription scheme: The role of expectations, self efficacy stage of change and psychological well-being. British Journal of Health Psychology. 10, 359-378.

King, A., Baumann, K., O'Sullivan, R, Wilcox, S., & Castro, C. (2002). Effects of moderate-intensity exercise on physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to family caregiving: A randomized controlled trial Journal of Gerontology. Medical Sciences. 57(1), M26-M36.

Luft, A. R., Macko, R. F., Forrester, L. W., Villagra, F., Ivey, F., Sorkin, J. D., ... Hanley, D. F. (2008). Treadmill exercise activates subcortical neural networks and improves walking after stroke: A Randomized controlled trial. Stroke, 39(12), 3341-3350.

Macko, R. F., DeSouza, C. A., Tretter, L. D., Silver, K. H., Smith, G. V., Anderson, R A., ... Dengel, D. R. (1997). Treadmill aerobic exercise training reduces the energy expenditure and cardiovascular demands of hemiparetic gait in chronic stroke patients. A preliminary report. Stroke. 28(2), 326-330.

Macko, R. F., Ivey, F. M., & Forrester, L. W. (2005). Task-oriented aerobic exercise in chronic hemiparetic stroke: training protocols and treatment effects. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 12(1), 45-57.

Macko, R. F., Smith, G. V., Dobrovolny, C. L., Sorkin, J. D., Goldberg, A. P., & Silver, K. H. (2001). Treadmill training improves fitness reserve in chronic stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(7), 879-884.

McArdle, W., Katch, K. F., & Katch, V. L. (1996). Energy, nutrition and human performance. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

McAuley, E., Konopack J. F., Motl, R. W., Morris, K. S., Doerksen, S. E., & Rosengren, K. R. (2006). Physical activity and quality of life in older adults: influence of health status and self-efficacy. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 99-103.

Mol, V. J., & Baker, C. A. (1991). Activity intolerance in the geriatric stroke patient. Rehabilitation Nursing, 16(6), 337-343.

Moore, D. S., Ellis R., Allen, P. D., Cherry, K. E., Monroe, P. A., O'Neil, C. E., & Wood, R. H. (2008). Construct validation of physical activity surveys in culturally diverse older adults: A comparison of four commonly used questionnaires. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(1), 42-50.

Paffenbarger, R., Blair, S. N., Lee, I., & Hyde, R. T. (1993). Measurement of physical activity to assess health effects in free-living populations. Medicine Science Sports and Exercise, 25, 60-70.

Pescatello, L., DiPietro, L., Fargo, A., Ostfeld, A., & Nadel, E. (1994). The impact of physical activity and physical fitness on health indicators among older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 2, 2-13.

Pols, M., Peeters, P., Kemper, H., & Collette, H. (1996). Repeatability and relative validity of two PA questionnaires in elderly women. Medicine Science Sports and Exercise, 28, 1020-1025.

Resnick, B., Michael, K., Shaughnessy, M., Kopunek, S., Nahm, E. S., & Macko, R. F. (2008). Motivators for treadmill exercise after stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 15(5), 494-502.

Resnick, B., Orwig, D., Wehren, L., Zimmerman, S., Simpson, M., & Magaziner, J. (2005). The exercise plus program for older women post hip fracture: participant perspectives. The Gerontologist, 45(4), 539-544.

Resnick, B., Ory, M. G., Coday, M., & Riebe, D. (2005). Older adults' perspectives on screening prior to initiating an exercise program. Prevention Science, 6(3), 203-211.

Robinson-Smith, G., & Pizzi, E. (2003). Maximizing stroke recovery using patient self-care self-efficacy Rehabilitation Nursing. 28(2), 48-51.

Roger, V. L., Go, A. S., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Adams, R. J., Berry, J. D., Brown, T. M., ... American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. (2011). Heart disease and stroke statistics--2011 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 123(4), e18-e209. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182009701

Ryan, A. S., Macko, R. F., Peters, M. N., Ivey, F. M., Prior, S. J., Joseph, L. J., & Hafer-Macko, C. E. (2009). Plasma adiponectin levels are associated with insulin sensitivity in stroke survivors. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 18(3), 214-220.

Shaughnessy, M., Resnick, B., & Macko, R. F. (2004). Reliability and validity testing of the short self efficacy and outcomes expectations for exercise scales in stroke survivors. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease, 13(5), 214-219.

Shaughnessy, M., Resnick, B., & Macko, R. F. (2006). Testing a model of exercise behavior following stroke. Rehabilitation Nursing, 31(1), 15-21.

Silver, K. H., Macko, R. F., Forrester, L. W., Goldberg, A. P., & Smith, G. V. (2000). Effects of aerobic treadmill training on gait velocity, cadence, and gait symmetry in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a preliminary report. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 14(1), 65-71.

Smith, G. V., Silver, K. H., Goldberg, A. P., & Macko, R. F. (1999). "Task-oriented" exercise improves hamstring strength and spastic reflexes in chronic stroke patients. Stroke, 30(10), 2112-2118.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships among self efficacy, personal goals and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 605-620.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 506-516.

Wheaton, L. A., Villagra, F., Hanley, D. F., Macko, R. F., & Forrester, L. W. (2009). Reliability of TMS motor evoked potentials in quadriceps of subjects with chronic hemiparesis after stroke. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 276(1-2), 115-117.

Questions or comments about this article may be directed to Marianne Shaughnessy, PhD CRNP, at mshaughn@grecc. umaryland.edu. She is the associate director of education/ evaluation at the Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center Baltimore Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center and University of Maryland Baltimore School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD.

Kathleen Michael, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD.

Barbara Resnick, PhD CRNP FAAN FAANP, is a professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

DOI: 10.1097/JN N.0b013e31823ae4b5
TABLE 1. Repeated Measure Results for All Outcome Variables

Variable                         n    Baseline            6 months

Outcome expectations (range (0-5)

Control                          34     3.89 (.68)       4.22 (.62)
Treatment                        29     4.19 (.68)       4.48 (.51)
Total                            64     4.03 (.69)       4.34 (.58)

Self-efficacy (range 0-5)

Control                          34    3.50 (1.16)       3.65 (.96)
Treatment                        29     3.57 (.97)       3.85 (.86)
Total                            63    3.54 (1.07)       3.75 (.91)

Housework (minutes/week)

Control                          33    2,159 (280)      1,693 (1584)
Treatment                        28    2,083 (1714)     1,695 (1908)
Total                                  2,125 (1908)     1,694 (1722)

Recreational activity (minutes/
week)

Control                          33     142 (262)         200 (345)
Treatment                        28     240 (557)         190 (388)
Total                            61     186 (420)         196 (362)
Exercise
Control                          33    850 (1521.)       776 (1039)
Treatment                        27     902 (1422)        880 (876)
Total                            60     873 (1465)        823 (962)
Total activity
Control                          33    3151 (2840)       2669 (1990)
Treatment                        27   3225.6 (2826)     2765.5 (2409)
Total                                  3185 (2810)       2713 (2169)

Visual Analogue Scale (0, no
recovery to 100, till recovery)

Control                          32   23.47 (26.11)     22.91 (28.47)
Treatment                        20   13.75 (27.17)     21.45 (26.92)
Total                            52   23.58 (26.26)     22.35 (27.62)

Stroke Impact Scale (physical
impact)

Control                          34   48.36 (18.17)     48.74 (18.15)
Treatment                        29   43.98 (22.37)     47.87 (20.33)
Total                            63   46.35 (20.17)     46.35 (20.16)

Stroke Impact Scale (memory)

Control                          33   82.89 (16.75)     84.53 (13.35)
Treatment                        31   91.37 (11.05)      91.91 (8.4)
Total                            64   86.99 (14.80)     88.11 (11.77)

Stroke Impact Scale (mood and
emotion)

Control                          34   84.07 (12.25)     81.92 (16.68)
Treatment                        26   85.58 (12.24)     86.51 (10.32)
Total                            60   84.72 (12.16)     83.91 (14.35)

Stroke Impact Scale
(communication)

Control                          34   87.92 (12.91)     89.58 (12.09)
Treatment                        26   91.34 (16.35)     90.56 (13.95)
Total                            60   89.40 (14.47)     90.01 (12.83)

Stroke Impact Scale (daily
activities)

Control                          34   72.94 (16.54)     78.68 (15.36)
Treatment                        29   73.96 (15.46)     78.30 (11.57)
Total                            61   73.41 (15.93)     78.50 (13.64)

Stroke Impact Scale (mobility)

Control                          32   82.54 (12.71)     84.28 (12.56)
Treatment                        28   82.62 (17.47)     84.02 (14.25)
Total                            60   82.58 (14.99)     84.16 (13.21)

Stroke Impact Scale (hand
function)

Control                          18   53.61 (29.19)     55.56 (29.25)
Treatment                        15   62.67 (19.14)     68.00 (32.05)
Total                            33   57.73 (29.07)     61.21 (30.92)

Stroke Impact Scale (social
activities)

Control                          34   75.93 (19.15)     79.50 (15.96)
Treatment                        29   82.51 (16.71)     79.65 (16.98)
Total                            63   78.96 (18.22)     79.57 (16.30)

Stroke Impact Scale (overall sum)

Control                          34   563.84 (89.95)   577.06 (83.99)
Treatment                        29   579.95 (80.79)   577.06 (102.43)
Total                            63   571.25 (85.55)   577.06 (92.16)

                                           Treatment x Time
                                             Interaction

                                                    Partial Eta
                                                      Squared
Variable                         n       F(p)         (power)

Outcome expectations (range (0-5)      .04 (.84)     .01 (5%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            64

Self-efficacy (range 0-5)              .27 (.61)     .26 (8%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Housework (minutes/week)               .03 (.86      .01 (5%)

Control                          33
Treatment                        28
Total

Recreational activity (minutes/        .83 (.36)     .02 (15%)
week)

Control                          33
Treatment                        28
Total                            61
Exercise                              .064 (.80)     .01 (5%)
Control                          33
Treatment                        27
Total                            60
Total activity                         .01 (.97)     .01 (5%)
Control                          33
Treatment                        27
Total

Visual Analogue Scale (0, no           .03 (.85)     .01 (5%)
recovery to 100, till recovery)

Control                          32
Treatment                        20
Total                            52

Stroke Impact Scale (physical          .72 (.40)     .01 (13%)
impact)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Stroke Impact Scale (memory)           .10 (.76)     .01 (6%)

Control                          33
Treatment                        31
Total                            64

Stroke Impact Scale (mood and          .97 (34)      .33 (16%)
emotion)

Control                          34
Treatment                        26
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale                    .69 (42)      .01 (13%)
(communication)

Control                          34
Treatment                        26
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale (daily             .21 (.65)     .01 (7%)
activities)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            61

Stroke Impact Scale (mobility)         .01 (.92)     .01 (5%)

Control                          32
Treatment                        28
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale (hand              .31 (.58)     .01 (8%)
function)

Control                          18
Treatment                        15
Total                            33

Stroke Impact Scale (social           2.37 (.13)     .04 (33%)
activities)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Stroke Impact Scale (overall sum)      .97 (.33)     .02 (16%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

                                         Effect      Partial Eta
                                        of Time        Squared
Variable                         n        F(p)         (power)

Outcome expectations (range (0-5)     13.23 (.001)    .18 (95%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            64

Self-efficacy (range 0-5)              2.95 (.09)     .05 (39%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Housework (minutes/week)               4.00 (.05)     .07 (50%)

Control                          33
Treatment                        28
Total

Recreational activity (minutes/        .01 (.93)       01 (5%)
week)

Control                          33
Treatment                        28
Total                            61
Exercise                                02 (.89)      .02 (6%)
Control                          33
Treatment                        27
Total                            60
Total activity                         2.48 (.12)     .04 (34%)
Control                          33
Treatment                        27
Total

Visual Analogue Scale (0, no           .09 (.77)      .02 (17%)
recovery to 100, till recovery)

Control                          32
Treatment                        20
Total                            52

Stroke Impact Scale (physical          1.1 (.31)      .02 (17%)
impact)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Stroke Impact Scale (memory)           .39 (.53)      .01 (9%)

Control                          33
Treatment                        31
Total                            64

Stroke Impact Scale (mood and          .15 (.70)      .01 (7%)
emotion)

Control                          34
Treatment                        26
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale                    .09 (.77)      .01 (6%)
(communication)

Control                          34
Treatment                        26
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale (daily            10.97 (.02)     .15 (90%)
activities)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            61

Stroke Impact Scale (mobility)         .89 (.35)      .02 (15%)

Control                          32
Treatment                        28
Total                            60

Stroke Impact Scale (hand              1.41 (.24)     .04 (21%)
function)

Control                          18
Treatment                        15
Total                            33

Stroke Impact Scale (social            .03 (.86)      .01 (5%)
activities)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63

Stroke Impact Scale (overall sum)      .39 (.53)      .01 (10%)

Control                          34
Treatment                        29
Total                            63
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.