4.5 Article

Physiotherapy Versus Physiotherapy Plus Cognitive Training on Cognition and Quality of Life in Parkinson Disease Randomized Clinical Trial

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001128

Keywords

Parkinson Disease; Cognition; Quality of Life

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of the study was to verify the effectiveness of physiotherapy associated with cognitive training to improve cognition and quality of life in individuals with Parkinson disease. Design: This is a randomized clinical trial involving 58 individuals with mild to moderate Parkinson disease, randomly distributed into two groups: motor group and cognitive-motor group. Both groups were assessed for cognition and quality of life at the beginning of the study, at the end of the intervention protocols, and 3 mos after the end of the intervention. The following instruments were used to assess cognition and quality of life: Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Verbal fluency test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Cognitive and perceptual assessment by pictures, Trail Making Test, Clock Drawing Executive Test, and Parkinson Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. The motor group engaged in motor physiotherapy, whereas the cognitive-motor group underwent combined motor physiotherapy with cognitive training. Results: The intragroup analysis revealed that both groups presented improved cognition ( memory and visuospatial function domains) and quality of life after execution of the protocols, but without statistically significant intergroup differences. Conclusions: When comparing the intervention moments, the two treatment approaches used were effective for the outcomes: memory, visuospatial function, and quality of life in both groups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available