Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Effects of integrated motor imagery practice on gait of individuals with chronic stroke: a half-cross-over randomized study |
Dickstein R, Deutsch JE, Yoeli Y, Kafri M, Flash F, Dunsky A, Eshet A, Alexander N |
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2013 Nov;94(11):2119-2125 |
clinical trial |
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: 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* |
OBJECTIVES: To test the effects of a new motor imagery practice approach, in which motor and motivational contents were integrated in order to improve gait in subjects with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis. DESIGN: A half-cross-over study composed of two phases: in phase I subjects were randomly assigned to receive either the experimental or the control treatment. In phase II, the subjects who had initially received the control treatment "crossed over" to receive the experimental intervention. SETTING: The experimental and the control intervention were delivered in the subjects' homes; assessments were performed in a hospital laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 23 community-dwelling individuals with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis whose gait was impaired. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention, called "integrated motor imagery practice", consisted of imagery scripts aimed at improving home and community walking, as well as fall-related self-efficacy. The control treatment consisted of executed exercises to improve the function of the involved upper extremity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: were in-home walking, indoor and outdoor community ambulation, and fall-related self-efficacy. These were assessed before and after the intervention, as well as at a two-week follow-up. RESULTS: In-home walking was significantly improved after application of the experimental intervention (p <= 0.003), but not after the control treatment (p <= 0.68). Community ambulation did not improve. Fall-related self-efficacy was slightly improved by the integrated motor imagery intervention, however the findings were not unequivocal. CONCLUSIONS: Home delivery of integrated motor imagery practice was feasible and exerted a positive effect on walking in the home. However, it was ineffective for improving gait in public domains. We speculate that the addition of physical to imagery practice maybe essential for achieving that end.
|