Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Effects of home-based versus clinic-based rehabilitation combining mirror therapy and task-specific training for patients with stroke: a randomized crossover trial |
Hsieh YW, Chang KC, Hung JW, Wu CY, Fu MH, Chen CC |
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2018 Dec;99(12):2399-2407 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the treatment effects of a home-based rehabilitation program compared with clinic-based rehabilitation in patients with stroke. DESIGN: A single-blinded, 2-sequence, 2-period, crossover-designed study. SETTING: Rehabilitation clinics and participant's home environment. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with disabilities poststroke. INTERVENTIONS: During each intervention period, each participant received 12 training sessions, with a 4-week washout phase between the 2 periods. Participants were randomly allocated to home-based rehabilitation first or clinic-based rehabilitation first. Intervention protocols included mirror therapy and task-specific training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were selected based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Outcomes of impairment level were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Box and Block Test, and Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment. Outcomes of activity and participation levels included the Motor Activity Log, 10-meter walk test, sit-to-stand test, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and EuroQoL-5D Questionnaire. RESULTS: Pretest analyses showed no significant evidence of carryover effect. Home-based rehabilitation resulted in significantly greater improvements on the Motor Activity Log amount of use subscale (p = 0.01) and the sit-to-stand test (p = 0.03) than clinic-based rehabilitation. The clinic-based rehabilitation group had better benefits on the health index measured by the EuroQoL-5D Questionnaire (p = 0.02) than the home-based rehabilitation group. Differences between the 2 groups on the other outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The home-based and clinic-based rehabilitation groups had comparable benefits in the outcomes of impairment level but showed differential effects in the outcomes of activity and participation levels.
|