4.6 Article

The effect of aerobic training on rehabilitation outcomes after recent severe brain injury: A randomized controlled evaluation

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.19744

关键词

brain injuries; disabled persons; exercise; nervous system diseases; rehabilitation; relaxation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the impact of fitness training with recently brain-injured inpatients on exercise capacity and functional and psychologic outcome measures. Design: A randomized controlled trial of exercise versus relaxation training for 3 months. Blind assessments were conducted before and after the end of a 12-week training program, as well as at follow-up assessment 12 weeks posttraining. Setting: Four regional neurologic inpatient rehabilitation units. Patients: Of 157 patients recruited 24 +/- 14 weeks after single-incident brain injury, 142 patients were assessed at week 12, and 128 patients at follow-up. Interventions: Patients were randomized between cycle ergometer aerobic training and a relaxation training control condition, which was theoretically inert with respect to cardiovascular fitness. Main Outcome Measures: Validation of exercise training (peak work rate, peak heart rate, body mass index); mobility and physical function (modified Ashworth scale, Berg balance scale, Rivermead Mobility Index, 10-m walk velocity); disability and dependency (Barthel index, FIM(TM) instrument, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living); and psychologic function (fatigue questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Results: Significant improvements in exercise capacity (p < .05) in the exercise training group (n = 70) relative to the control group (n = 72) were not matched by greater improvements in functional independence, mobility, or psychologic function, at either 12 weeks or follow-up. Conclusions: The benefits of improved cardiovascular fitness did not appear to extend to measurable change in function or psychologic state.

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