Jacob J Sosnoff1, Douglas A Wajda2, Brian M Sandroff3, Kathleen L Roeing1, JongHun Sung1, Robert W Motl4. 1. 1 Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. 2. 2 Department of Exercise Science, Cleveland State University, USA. 3. 3 Kessler Foundation, West Orange, NY, USA. 4. 4 Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of dual task training in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 234 individuals inquired about the investigation. After screening, 20 individuals with multiple sclerosis who self-reported problems with multitasking and were ambulatory volunteered for the investigation. 14 participants completed the post-assessment following the 12-week intervention. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to either single task training program which focused on balance and walking function ( n=6) or dual task training program that incorporated cognitive tasks in balance and walking training ( n=8). MEASURES: Before and after the 12-week interventions participants underwent assessments of walking; dual task walking; balance (Berg Balance Scale and balance confidence) and cognition as indexed by the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS. RESULTS: There was an 8.5% recruitment rate, a 70% retention rate, and a 100% adherence rate. There was a trend for dual task gait speed to improve in the dual task training group following the intervention (Pre: task 1: 109.8±39, task 2: 104.2±34.1; Post: task 1:127.6±40.1, task 2: 122.8±37.4; P=0.14; η2 = 0.24). There was also a trend for the dual task training group (28.1) to have greater performance than the control group (24.7) on visuospatial memory ( P=0.10; η2= 0.23). There were no changes in cognitive performance during walking trials. CONCLUSIONS: The study procedures were found to be feasible and improvements should be made in recruitment efforts going forward. Further examination of dual task training programs in individuals with multiple sclerosis is warranted.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of dual task training in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 234 individuals inquired about the investigation. After screening, 20 individuals with multiple sclerosis who self-reported problems with multitasking and were ambulatory volunteered for the investigation. 14 participants completed the post-assessment following the 12-week intervention. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to either single task training program which focused on balance and walking function ( n=6) or dual task training program that incorporated cognitive tasks in balance and walking training ( n=8). MEASURES: Before and after the 12-week interventions participants underwent assessments of walking; dual task walking; balance (Berg Balance Scale and balance confidence) and cognition as indexed by the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS. RESULTS: There was an 8.5% recruitment rate, a 70% retention rate, and a 100% adherence rate. There was a trend for dual task gait speed to improve in the dual task training group following the intervention (Pre: task 1: 109.8±39, task 2: 104.2±34.1; Post: task 1:127.6±40.1, task 2: 122.8±37.4; P=0.14; η2 = 0.24). There was also a trend for the dual task training group (28.1) to have greater performance than the control group (24.7) on visuospatial memory ( P=0.10; η2= 0.23). There were no changes in cognitive performance during walking trials. CONCLUSIONS: The study procedures were found to be feasible and improvements should be made in recruitment efforts going forward. Further examination of dual task training programs in individuals with multiple sclerosis is warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Multiple Sclerosis; balance; cognitive motor interference; gait
Authors: Delphine Van Laethem; Frederik Van de Steen; Daphne Kos; Maarten Naeyaert; Peter Van Schuerbeek; Miguel D'Haeseleer; Marie B D'Hooghe; Jeroen Van Schependom; Guy Nagels Journal: Trials Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Renee Veldkamp; Ilse Baert; Alon Kalron; Andrea Tacchino; Mieke D'hooge; Ellen Vanzeir; Fanny Van Geel; Joke Raats; Mieke Goetschalckx; Giampaolo Brichetto; Nov Shalmoni; Peter Hellinckx; Natasja De Weerdt; Dorien De Wilde; Peter Feys Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.241