4.2 Article

Meaningful Task-Specific Training (MTST) for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 193-211

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1903-193

Keywords

hemiparesis; MTST; neuroplasticity; stroke; task-specific training

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objective: The upper extremity motor deficit is one of the functional challenges in post stroke patients. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the meaningful task-specific training (MTST) on the upper extremity motor recovery during the subacute phase after a stroke. Method: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial in the neurology department of a university hospital and occupational therapy unit of a rehabilitation institute. A convenience sample of 103 people, 4 to 24 weeks (mean, 12.15 weeks) after the stroke, was randomized into 2 groups (MTST, 51; standard training group, 52). Subjects in the Brunnstrom stage of arm recovery of 2 to 5 were included in the study. Ninety-five participants completed the 8-week follow-up. Interventions: Participants were assigned to receive either the MTST or dose-matched standard training program based on the Brunnstrom stage and Bobath neurodevelopmental technique, 4 to 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Graded Wolf Motor Function Test (GWMFT), and Motor Activity Log (MAL) were outcome measures. Results: The MTST group showed a positive improvement in the mean scores on the outcome measures at post and follow-up assessments in comparison to the control group. Further, statistically significant differences were observed in changes between the groups at post and follow-up assessment for FMA, ARAT, GWMFT, and MAL. Conclusion: The MTST produced statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in the upper extremity motor recovery of the patients who had a subacute stroke.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available