4.2 Article

Effectiveness of ReSET; a strategic executive treatment for executive dysfunctioning in patients with Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 67-84

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1452761

关键词

Parkinson’ s disease; Neuropsychological rehabilitation; Executive impairments; Strategy training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT), 43 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) were randomly allocated to either the experimental condition receiving cognitive rehabilitation including strategy training (ReSET; Strategic Executive Treatment, n = 24) or to the control condition receiving computerised repetitive practice training for attention (Cogniplus, n = 16). We expected that strategy training (ReSET) would be more effective than cognitive training (Cogniplus) in improving patients' everyday life executive functioning. Neuropsychological assessment was administered at baseline, at 2 weeks and 3-5 months post-treatment. Primary outcome measure was the Role Resumption List (RRL). Secondary outcome measures were treatment goal attainment (TGA), Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX), Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and neuropsychological tests. No effects of treatment were found on the primary outcome measure and on neuropsychological tests, except for one test of attention. At 2 weeks and 3-5 months post-treatment, PD patients in both the ReSET and Cogniplus group reported a significant improvement in everyday life executive functioning, as measured with TGA and the DEX-self, with an advantage for ReSET only shortly after treatment. Given these results and that PD patients were able to adhere to these treatments despite their motor symptoms and fatigue (i.e., the drop-out rate was small), we conclude that both strategy training and cognitive training for impairments in EF might be beneficial and feasible for PD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据