Extra upper limb practice after stroke: a feasibility study.
Occupational therapy
Physical therapy
Rehabilitation
Task-specific motor training
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
05
2019
accepted:
14
11
2019
entrez:
2
1
2020
pubmed:
2
1
2020
medline:
2
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a need to provide a large amount of extra practice on top of usual rehabilitation to adults after stroke. The purpose of this study was to determine if it is feasible to add extra upper limb practice to usual inpatient rehabilitation and whether it is likely to improve upper limb activity and grip strength. A prospective, single-group, pre- and post-test study was carried out. Twenty adults with upper limb activity limitations who had some movement in the upper limb completed an extra hour of upper limb practice, 6 days per week for 4 weeks. Feasibility was measured by examining recruitment, intervention (adherence, efficiency, acceptability, safety) and measurement. Clinical outcomes were upper limb activity (Box and Block Test, Nine-Hole Peg Test) and grip strength (dynamometry) measured at baseline (week 0) and end of intervention (week 4). Of the 212 people who were screened, 42 (20%) were eligible and 20 (9%) were enrolled. Of the 20 participants, 12 (60%) completed the 4-week program; 7 (35%) were discharged early, and 1 (5%) withdrew. Participants attended 342 (85%) of the possible 403 sessions and practiced for 324 (95%) of the total 342 h. In terms of safety, there were no study-related adverse events. Participants increased 0.29 blocks/s (95% CI 0.19 to 0.39) on the Box and Block Test, 0.20 pegs/s (95% CI 0.10 to 0.30) on the Nine-Hole Peg Test, and 4.4 kg (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) in grip strength, from baseline to end of intervention. It appears feasible for adults who are undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and have some upper limb movement after stroke to undertake an hour of extra upper limb practice. The magnitude of the clinical outcomes suggests that further investigation is warranted and this study provides useful information for the design of a phase II randomized trial. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12615000665538).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a need to provide a large amount of extra practice on top of usual rehabilitation to adults after stroke. The purpose of this study was to determine if it is feasible to add extra upper limb practice to usual inpatient rehabilitation and whether it is likely to improve upper limb activity and grip strength.
METHOD
METHODS
A prospective, single-group, pre- and post-test study was carried out. Twenty adults with upper limb activity limitations who had some movement in the upper limb completed an extra hour of upper limb practice, 6 days per week for 4 weeks. Feasibility was measured by examining recruitment, intervention (adherence, efficiency, acceptability, safety) and measurement. Clinical outcomes were upper limb activity (Box and Block Test, Nine-Hole Peg Test) and grip strength (dynamometry) measured at baseline (week 0) and end of intervention (week 4).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 212 people who were screened, 42 (20%) were eligible and 20 (9%) were enrolled. Of the 20 participants, 12 (60%) completed the 4-week program; 7 (35%) were discharged early, and 1 (5%) withdrew. Participants attended 342 (85%) of the possible 403 sessions and practiced for 324 (95%) of the total 342 h. In terms of safety, there were no study-related adverse events. Participants increased 0.29 blocks/s (95% CI 0.19 to 0.39) on the Box and Block Test, 0.20 pegs/s (95% CI 0.10 to 0.30) on the Nine-Hole Peg Test, and 4.4 kg (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) in grip strength, from baseline to end of intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It appears feasible for adults who are undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and have some upper limb movement after stroke to undertake an hour of extra upper limb practice. The magnitude of the clinical outcomes suggests that further investigation is warranted and this study provides useful information for the design of a phase II randomized trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12615000665538).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31893129
doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0531-5
pii: 531
pmc: PMC6936148
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
156Informations de copyright
© The Author(s). 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Références
J Rehabil Med. 2004 Jul;(44 Suppl):135-41
pubmed: 15370761
Int J Stroke. 2015 Jun;10(4):594-602
pubmed: 25790018
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):445-58
pubmed: 21674393
Lancet. 1999 Jul 17;354(9174):191-6
pubmed: 10421300
Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Oct 30;27(20):1213-23
pubmed: 16298923
Neurology. 1973 Jun;23(6):658-64
pubmed: 4736313
Stroke. 2011 Nov;42(11):3311-5
pubmed: 21998062
Clin Rehabil. 2009 Jun;23(6):492-503
pubmed: 19321521
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2014;234(4):281-6
pubmed: 25483170
Stroke. 1999 Mar;30(3):573-9
pubmed: 10066854
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Stroke. 2017 Mar;48(3):795-798
pubmed: 28143920
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(8):1005-13
pubmed: 22068375
Physiother Res Int. 2000;5(4):230-40
pubmed: 11129665
Stroke. 2006 Sep;37(9):2348-53
pubmed: 16931787
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 May 22;4:82
pubmed: 29796293
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jan;24(1):88-96
pubmed: 19704158
Clin Rehabil. 2004 Aug;18(5):529-37
pubmed: 15293487
Aust J Physiother. 1992;38(1):31-5
pubmed: 25025514
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jan;27(1):75-81
pubmed: 22801472
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(9):715-20
pubmed: 22115200
Int J Stroke. 2014 Jun;9(4):479-88
pubmed: 24661797
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Aug 20;13:104
pubmed: 23961782
Am J Occup Ther. 2013 Mar-Apr;67(2):171-6
pubmed: 23433271
Clin Rehabil. 2003 Sep;17(6):579-89
pubmed: 12971702
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12):1547-55
pubmed: 11128888
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2123-8
pubmed: 19359633
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 May;23(4):389-97
pubmed: 19109444
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Feb;93(2):200-6
pubmed: 22289227
J Physiother. 2016 Oct;62(4):182-7
pubmed: 27637769
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Apr 14;4:127
pubmed: 21492469
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Sep;28(9):912-23
pubmed: 24668359
Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2053-8
pubmed: 24867924
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016 Dec;23(6):413-419
pubmed: 27156736