Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Pilot study on comparisons between the effectiveness of mobile video-guided and paper-based home exercise programs on improving exercise adherence, self-efficacy for exercise and functional outcomes of patients with stroke with 3-month follow-up: a single-blind randomized controlled trial
Chung BPH, Chiang WKH, Lau H, Lau TFO, Lai CWK, Sit CSY, Chan KY, Yeung CY, Lo TM, Hui E, Lee JSW
Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal 2020 Jun;40(1):63-73
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; 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: To compare the effectiveness of mobile video-guided home exercise program and standard paper-based home exercise program. METHOD(S): Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either experimental group with mobile video-guided home exercise program or control group with home exercise program in a standard pamphlet for three months. The primary outcome was exercise adherence. The secondary outcomes were self-efficacy for exercise by Self-Efficacy for Exercise (SEE) scale; and functional outcomes including mobility level by Modified Functional Ambulatory Category (MFAC) and basic activities of daily living (ADL) by Modified Barthel Index (MBI). All outcomes were captured by phone interviews at 1 day, 1 month and 3 months after the participants were discharged from the hospitals. RESULT(S): A total of 56 participants were allocated to the experimental group (n = 27) and control group (n = 29). There were a significant between-group differences in 3-months exercise adherence (experimental group 75.6%; control group 55.2%); significant between-group differences in 1-month SEE (experimental group 58.4; control group 43.3) and 3-month SEE (experimental group 62.2; control group 45.6). For functional outcomes, there were significant between-group differences in 3-month MFAC gain (experimental group 1.7; control group 1.0). There were no between-group differences in MBI gain. CONCLUSION(S): The use of mobile video-guided home exercise program was superior to standard paper-based home exercise program in exercise adherence, SEE and mobility gain but not basic ADL gain for patients recovering from stroke.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help