1 Research & Development, Heliomare Rehabilitation Centre, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands.
2 Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Feb;33(2):207-221. doi: 10.1177/0269215518795243. Epub 2018 Aug 31.
: This study aimed to assess if external focus instructions result in greater improvements in motor skill and automaticity compared to internal focus instructions in stroke patients.
: Double-blind randomized controlled trial.
: Inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit.
: A total of 63 stroke patients (Mean = 59.6 ± 10.7 years; Mean = 28.5 ± 16.6; Median = 4).
: Patients were randomly assigned to an internal ( N = 31) or external ( N = 32) focus instruction group. Both groups practiced a balance board stabilization task, three times per week, for three weeks. Balance performance was assessed at baseline, and after one and three weeks of practice.
: Primary outcome was the threshold stiffness (Nm/rad) at which patients could stay balanced. Secondary outcomes were patients' sway (root-mean-square error in degrees) at the baseline threshold stiffness under single- and dual-task conditions, and their performance on the Timed Up and Go Test and Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation.
: Both groups achieved similar improvements in threshold stiffness (∆= 27.1 ± 21.1 Nm/rad), and single- (∆= 1.8 ± 2.3° root-mean-square error) and dual-task sway (∆= 1.7 ± 2.1° root-mean-square error) after three weeks of practice. No differences were found in improvements in clinical tests of balance and mobility. Patients with comparatively good balance and sensory function, and low attention capacity showed greatest improvements with external focus instructions.
: External focus instructions did not result in greater improvement in balance skill in stroke patients compared to internal focus instructions. Results suggest that tailoring instructions to the individual stroke patient may result in optimal improvements in motor skill.
本研究旨在评估与内部焦点指令相比,外部焦点指令是否会使中风患者的运动技能和自动性得到更大的提高。
双盲随机对照试验。
住院脑卒中康复病房。
共 63 例脑卒中患者(平均年龄=59.6±10.7 岁;平均=28.5±16.6;中位数=4)。
患者随机分为内部(N=31)或外部(N=32)焦点指令组。两组均每周练习三次平衡板稳定任务,持续三周。在基线、练习一周和三周后评估平衡表现。
主要结局指标是患者能够保持平衡的阈值刚度(Nm/rad)。次要结局指标是患者在基线阈值刚度下在单任务和双任务条件下的摆动(度均方根误差),以及他们在计时起立行走测试和乌得勒支康复评估量表上的表现。
两组患者在阈值刚度(∆=27.1±21.1 Nm/rad)、单任务(∆=1.8±2.3° 均方根误差)和双任务摆动(∆=1.7±2.1° 均方根误差)方面均取得了类似的改善。在平衡和移动能力的临床测试改善方面,没有发现差异。平衡和感觉功能较好、注意力能力较低的患者,外部焦点指令的改善效果最大。
与内部焦点指令相比,外部焦点指令并未使中风患者的平衡技能得到更大的提高。结果表明,根据个体中风患者的情况调整指令可能会使运动技能得到最佳改善。