Home-based reach-to-grasp training for people after stroke: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial

Trials

Paulette van Vliet⁵  Steven L Wolf²  Sue Jowett⁴  Keith Wheatley⁴  Chris Rogers³  Cath Sackley⁶  Frederike van Wijck¹  Emma Heron⁷  Paul Cunningham⁷  Ailie J Turton⁷ 

[1] Glasgow Caledonian University, UK;Emory University, Atlanta, USA;University of Bristol, UK;University of Birmingham, UK;University of Newcastle, Australia;University of East Anglia, UK;Department of Allied Health Professions, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS351NS, UK

关键词: Task-specific training;    Grasp;    Reach;    Home;    Rehabilitation;    Occupational therapy;    Physical therapy;    Arm;    Hand;    Stroke;   

Others  :  1094236
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-109

 received in 2013-02-08, accepted in 2013-03-22,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

This feasibility study is intended to assess the acceptability of home-based task-specific reach-to-grasp (RTG) training for people with stroke, and to gather data to inform recruitment, retention, and sample size for a definitive randomized controlled trial.

Methods/design

This is to be a randomized controlled feasibility trial recruiting 50 individuals with upper-limb motor impairment after stroke. Participants will be recruited after discharge from hospital and up to 12 months post-stroke from hospital stroke services and community therapy-provider services. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and then electronically randomized and allocated to group by minimization, based on the time post-stroke and extent of upper-limb impairment. The intervention group will receive 14 training sessions, each 1 hour long, with a physiotherapist over 6 weeks and will be encouraged to practice independently for 1 hour/day to give a total of 56 hours of training time per participant. Participants allocated to the control group will receive arm therapy in accordance with usual care. Participants will be measured at 7 weeks post-randomization, and followed-up at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. Primary outcome measures for assessment of arm function are the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). Secondary measures are the Motor Activity Log, Stroke Impact Scale, Carer Strain Index, and health and social care resource use. All assessments will be conducted by a trained assessor blinded to treatment allocation. Recruitment, adherence, withdrawals, adverse events (AEs), and completeness of data will be recorded and reported.

Discussion

This study will determine the acceptability of the intervention, the characteristics of the population recruited, recruitment and retention rates, descriptive statistics of outcomes, and incidence of AEs. It will provide the information needed for planning a definitive trial to test home-based RTG training.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN56716589

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Turton et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organisation: Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges. Geneva: WHO; 2006.
• [2]Department of Health: Progress in improving stroke care. London: National Audit Office; 2010.
• [3]Department of Health: National Stroke Strategy. London: DH; 2007.
• [4]Care Quality Commission: Supporting life after stroke. Review of services for people who have had a stroke and their carers. London: CQC; 2011.
• [5]Department of Health: NHS Outcomes Framework 2012–13. London: DH; 2011.
• [6]Party ISW: National clinical guideline for stroke. 4th edition. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2012.
• [7]Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS: Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1994, 75(4):394-398.
• [8]Kong KH, Chua K, Lee J: Recovery of upper limb dexterity in patients more than 1 year after stroke: frequency, clinical correlates and predictors. Neurorehabilitation 2011, 28:105-111.
• [9]Wyller TB, Sveen U, Sødring KM, Pettersen AM, Bautz-Holter E: Subjective well-being one year after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1997, 11:139-145.
• [10]Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S: Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 2005, 36(7):1480-1484.
• [11]Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L: Top ten research priorities relating to life after stroke. Lancet Neurol 2012, 11(3):209.
• [12]Rankin G, Rushton A, Olver P, Moore A: Chartered society of physiotherapy’s identification of national research priorities for physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique. Physiotherapy 2012, 98(3):260-272.
• [13]Coupar F, Pollock A, Legg LA, Sackley C, van Vliet P: Home-based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012., 5CD006755
• [14]Proteau L, Marteniuk RG, Levesque L: A sensorimotor basis for motor learning: evidence indicating specificity of practice. Q J Exp Psychol A 1992, 44:557-575.
• [15]Hubbard IJ, Parsons MW, Neilson C, Carey LM: Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. Occup Ther Int 2009, 16(3–4):175-189.
• [16]Plautz EJ, Milliken GW, Nudo RJ: Effects of repetitive motor training on movement representations in adult squirrel monkeys: role of use versus learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2000, 74(1):27-55.
• [17]Dean CM, Shepherd RB: Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke 1997, 28(4):722-728.
• [18]Takahashi C, Der-yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala R, Cramer S: Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain 2008, 131(2):425-437.
• [19]Calautti C, Baron JC: Functional neuroimaging studies of motor recovery after stroke in adults: a review. Stroke 2003, 34:1553-1566.
• [20]Getting PA: Emerging principles governing the operation of neural networks. Annu Rev Neurosci 1989, 12:185-204.
• [21]Remple MS, Bruneau RM, VandenBerg PM, Goertzen C, Kleim JA: Sensitivity of cortical movement representations to motor experience: evidence that skill learning but not strength training induces cortical reorganization. Behav Brain Res 2001, 123(2):133-141.
• [22]Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A: Hand motor recovery after stroke: tuning the orchestra to improve hand motor function. Cogn Behav Neurol 2006, 19(1):21-33.
• [23]Boyd LA, Vidoni ED, Wessel BD: Motor learning after stroke: is skill acquisition a prerequisite for contralesional neuroplastic change? Neurosci Lett 2010, 482(1):21-25.
• [24]French B, Thomas LH, Leathley MJ, Sutton CJ, McAdam J, Forster A, Langhorne P, Price CI, Walker A, Watkins CL: Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007., 4CD006073
• [25]Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A: Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009, 8:741-754.
• [26]Shaw L, Rodgers H, Price C, van Wijck F, Shackley P, Steen N, Barnes M, Ford G, Graham L: BoTULS: a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin type A. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14(26):1-113.
• [27]Ward A, Wissel J, Borg J, Wright N: Goal setting and attainment pertaining to upper and lower limb function in post-stroke spasticity (PSS) patients: the botox economic spasticity trial (BEST) [abstract]. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2011, 54(Suppl 1):136-137.
• [28]Kilbreath SL, Heard RC: Frequency of hand use in healthy older persons. Aust J Physiother 2005, 51(2):119-122.
• [29]Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D: Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke. JAMA 2006, 296:2095-2104.
• [30]Office of National Statistics: Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/index.html webcite
• [31]Lyle RC: A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 1981, 4:483-492.
• [32]Great Britain: Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c.9). London: HMSO; 2005.
• [33]Bohannon RW, Smith MB: Inter-rater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 1987, 2:206-208.
• [34]Montreal Cognitive Assessment. http://www.mocatest.org webcite
• [35]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:332.
• [36]Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A: Assessing wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke 2001, 32:1635-1639.
• [37]Hseih C-L, Hsueh I-P, Chiang F-M, Lin P-H: Inter-rater reliability and validity of the action research arm test in stroke patients. Age Ageing 1998, 27:107-113.
• [38]Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL: The action research arm test: is it necessary for patients being tested to sit at a standardized table? Clin Rehabil 2002, 16:382-388.
• [39]Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F: Arm Rehabilitation Measurement: Manual for Performance and Scoring. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenchafts-Verlag; 2005.
• [40]Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I-H, di Bella P, Johnson G: Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardised guidelines for the fugl-meyer test, action research arm test and box and blocks test: a multi-centre study. Clin Rehabil 2005, 19:452-462.
• [41]Morris DM, Uswatte G, Crago JE, Cook EW, Taub E: The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 82:750-755.
• [42]Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA: The motor activity log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology 2006, 67:1189-1194.
• [43]Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ: The stroke impact scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999, 30:2131-2140.
• [44]Robinson BC: Validation of a caregiver strain index. J Gerontol 1983, 38:344-348.
• [45]Britain G: Data Protection Act. London: HMSO; 1998.
• [46]Duncan PW, Lai SM, Keighley J: Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology 2000, 39:835-841.
• [47]Morris J, van Wijck F, Joice S, Ogston SA, Cole I, MacWalter R: A comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper limb task training in early post-stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89:1237-1245.
• [48]Siemonsma PC, Walker MF: Practical guidelines for independent assessment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 1997, 11(4):273-279.
• [49]Minns Lowe CJ, Wilson MS, Sackley CM, Barker KL: Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Clin Rehabil 2011, 25(3):264-274.
• [50]Magill RA: Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. 9th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
• [51]Carr JH, Shepherd RB: A motor relearning programme for stroke. London: Heinemann Physiotherapy; 1987.
• [52]Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE: Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in one hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010, 24(7):620-635.
• [53]Smith J, Forster A, House A, Knapp P, Wright JJ, Young J: Information provision for stroke patients and their caregivers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008., 2CD001919
• [54]Donaldson C, Tallis RC, Pomeroy VM: A treatment schedule of conventional physical therapy provided to enhance upper limb sensorimotor recovery after stroke: expert criterion validity and intra-rater reliability. Physiotherapy 2009, 95:110-119.
• [55]International Conference on Harmonisation: Good Clinical Practice. http://ichgcp.net webcite
• [56]Department of Health: Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. London: Department of Health; 2005.
• [57]National Health Service Improvement – Stroke: Mind the Gap: Ways to Enhance Therapy Provision in Stroke Rehabilitation. London: National Health Service Improvement; 2011.
• [58]Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Bayley M, Hill MD, Davies-Schinkel C, Singh S, Phillips S: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (Update 2010). Ottawa, Ontario Canada; 2010.
• [59]National Stroke Foundation: Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management 2010. Melbourne, Australia: National Stroke Foundation; 2010.