Elizabeth R Skidmore1, Meryl Butters2, Ellen Whyte2, Emily Grattan3, Jennifer Shen4, Lauren Terhorst5. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: skidmore@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Health Science and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of direct skill training and guided training for promoting independence after stroke. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized pilot study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facility. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in inpatient rehabilitation with acute stroke and cognitive impairments (N=43). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive direct skill training (n=22, 10 sessions as adjunct to usual inpatient rehabilitation) or guided training (n=21, same dose). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The FIM assessed independence at baseline, rehabilitation discharge, and months 3, 6, and 12. RESULTS: Linear mixed models (random intercept, other effects fixed) revealed a significant intervention by time interaction (F4,150=5.11, P<.001), a significant main effect of time (F4,150=49.25, P<.001), and a significant effect of stroke severity (F1,150=34.46, P<.001). There was no main effect of intervention (F1,150=.07, P=.79). Change in FIM scores was greater for the direct group at rehabilitation discharge (effect size of between-group differences, d=.28) and greater for the guide group at months 3 (d=.16), 6 (d=.39), and 12 (d=.53). The difference between groups in mean 12-month change scores was 10.57 points. CONCLUSIONS:Guided training, provided in addition to usual care, offered a small advantage in the recovery of independence, relative to direct skill training. Future studies examining guided training in combination with other potentially potent intervention elements may further advise best practices in rehabilitation for individuals with cognitive impairments after acute stroke.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of direct skill training and guided training for promoting independence after stroke. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized pilot study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facility. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in inpatient rehabilitation with acute stroke and cognitive impairments (N=43). INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomized to receive direct skill training (n=22, 10 sessions as adjunct to usual inpatient rehabilitation) or guided training (n=21, same dose). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The FIM assessed independence at baseline, rehabilitation discharge, and months 3, 6, and 12. RESULTS: Linear mixed models (random intercept, other effects fixed) revealed a significant intervention by time interaction (F4,150=5.11, P<.001), a significant main effect of time (F4,150=49.25, P<.001), and a significant effect of stroke severity (F1,150=34.46, P<.001). There was no main effect of intervention (F1,150=.07, P=.79). Change in FIM scores was greater for the direct group at rehabilitation discharge (effect size of between-group differences, d=.28) and greater for the guide group at months 3 (d=.16), 6 (d=.39), and 12 (d=.53). The difference between groups in mean 12-month change scores was 10.57 points. CONCLUSIONS: Guided training, provided in addition to usual care, offered a small advantage in the recovery of independence, relative to direct skill training. Future studies examining guided training in combination with other potentially potent intervention elements may further advise best practices in rehabilitation for individuals with cognitive impairments after acute stroke.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Elizabeth R Skidmore; Deirdre R Dawson; Meryl A Butters; Emily S Grattan; Shannon B Juengst; Ellen M Whyte; Amy Begley; Margo B Holm; James T Becker Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Pamela W Duncan; Katherine J Sullivan; Andrea L Behrman; Stanley P Azen; Samuel S Wu; Stephen E Nadeau; Bruce H Dobkin; Dorian K Rose; Julie K Tilson Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Jessica Kersey; William S Evans; Katie Mullen; Annette Askren; Robert Cavanaugh; Sarah E Wallace; William D Hula; Michael Walsh Dickey; Lauren Terhorst; Elizabeth Skidmore Journal: OTJR (Thorofare N J) Date: 2021-06-26