4.6 Article

Translating Animal Doses of Task-Specific Training to People With Chronic Stroke in 1-Hour Therapy Sessions: A Proof-of-Concept Study

期刊

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 620-635

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968310361957

关键词

stroke; UE; task-specific training; function; translational research

资金

  1. HealthSouth Corporation
  2. Missouri Physical Therapy Association
  3. NIH [K01 HD047669, TL1 RR024994]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The purposes of this study were to (1) examine the feasibility of translating high-repetition doses of upper-extremity (UE) task-specific training to people with stroke within the confines of the current outpatient delivery system of 1-hour therapy sessions and (2) to gather preliminary data regarding the potential benefit of this intensity of training. Methods. A total of 15 patients with chronic (> 6 months) UE paresis caused by stroke underwent 3 weeks of baseline assessments followed by 6 weeks of the high-repetition intervention (3 sessions/wk for 6 weeks). During each 1-hour session, participants were challenged to complete 300 or more repetitions of UE functional task training (3 tasks x 100 repetitions). Assessments during and after the intervention were used to measure feasibility and potential benefit. Results. For the 13 participants completing the intervention, the average number of repetitions per session was 322. The percentage of sessions attended was 97%. Participant ratings of pain and fatigue were low. Action Research Arm test scores improved an average of 8 points during the intervention and were maintained at the 1-month follow-up. Secondary measures of activity and participation increased, but the measure of impairment did not. Conclusions. It is feasible to deliver hundreds of repetitions of task-specific training to people with stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions. Preliminary outcome data suggest that this intervention may be beneficial for some people with stroke.

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

4.6
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