Literature DB >> 22668681

Opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy among therapists in southwestern Ohio.

Leah Daniel1, Whitney Howard, Danielle Braun, Stephen J Page.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of therapists about constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT).
METHOD: A convenience sample of 92 therapists with at least 1 year of clinical experience working in outpatient and inpatient hospital and clinical neurorehabilitation settings was surveyed. Subjects completed a self-report questionnaire discerning their opinions of CIMT during their clinical staff meetings. The questionnaire described CIMT to participants using excerpts from a recently published trial of CIMT. Subjects then responded to various statements concerning their opinions of the protocol and supplied the rationale for their opinions.
RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of participants reported that it would be very difficult or difficult to administer CIMT in their clinics, and 83% felt that most clinics would not have the resources to implement CIMT. Additionally, more than 61% of respondents stated that managed care payers were either somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to reimburse for CIMT, and no respondent believed that it was very likely that managed care would fund CIMT. Most respondents felt that patients would experience great difficulty with the clinical session and restrictive device durations. There were 78.3% of participants who were not aware that an efficacious modified CIMT regimen was available that could overcome the aforementioned challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings were consistent with CIMT trials and surveys regarding client compliance difficulties and therapist misgivings. Findings argue for continued refinement of modified CIMT regimens as well as greater educational efforts regarding CIMT for therapists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22668681     DOI: 10.1310/tsr1903-268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil        ISSN: 1074-9357            Impact factor:   2.119


  5 in total

1.  Clinician's Commentary on Stevenson et al.(1.).

Authors:  Jocelyn Harris
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  It takes two: noninvasive brain stimulation combined with neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  Stephen J Page; David A Cunningham; Ela Plow; Brittani Blazak
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 3.  The Mechanism and Clinical Application of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Dong Wang; Junlu Xiang; Ying He; Min Yuan; Li Dong; Zhenli Ye; Wei Mao
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 3.617

4.  Cost-Effectiveness of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Implementation in Neurorehabilitation: The ACTIveARM Project.

Authors:  Lauren J Christie; Nicola Fearn; Annie McCluskey; Meryl Lovarini; Reem Rendell; Alison Pearce
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-03-22

Review 5.  A Literature Review of High-Tech Physiotherapy Interventions in the Elderly with Neurological Disorders.

Authors:  Marios Spanakis; Ioanna Xylouri; Evridiki Patelarou; Athina Patelarou
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.614

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.