Carolien Strouwen1, Esther A L M Molenaar, Liesbeth Münks, Sanne Broeder, Pieter Ginis, Bastiaan R Bloem, Alice Nieuwboer, Elke Heremans. 1. Neuromotor Rehabilitation Research Group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium (C.S., L.M., S.B., P.G., A.N., E.H.); and Department of Neurology, Nijmegen Centre for Evidence Based Practice (E.A.M.) and Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (B.R.B.), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Dual-task interventions show positive effects in people with Parkinson disease (PD), but it remains unclear which factors determine the size of these benefits. As a secondary analysis of the DUALITY trial, the aim of this study was to assess the determinants of the effect size after 2 types of dual-task practice. METHODS: We randomly allocated 121 participants with PD to receive eitherintegrated or consecutive dual-task training. Dual-task walking performance was assessed during (i) a backward digit span task (digit), (ii) an auditory Stroop task (Stroop), and (iii) a functional mobile phone task. Baseline descriptive, motor, and cognitive variables were correlated with the change in dual-task gait velocity after the intervention. Factors correlated with the change in dual-task gait velocity postintervention (P < 0.20) were entered into a stepwise forward multiple linear regression model. RESULTS:Lower dual-task gait velocity and higher cognitive capacity (Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Cognition [ScopaCog]) at baseline were related to larger improvements in dual-task gait velocity after both integrated and consecutive dual-task training for all 3 tasks (β[gait] = -0.45, β[ScopaCog] = 0.34, R = 0.23, P < 0.001, for digit; β[gait] = -0.52, β[ScopaCog] = 0.29, R = 0.26, P < 0.001, for Stroop; and β[gait] = -0.40, β[ScopaCog] = 0.30, R = 0.18, P < 0.001, for mobile phone task). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Participants with PD who showed aslow dual-task gait velocity and good cognitive functioning at baseline benefited most from the dual-task training, irrespective of the type of training and type of dual-task outcome.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A242).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-task interventions show positive effects in people with Parkinson disease (PD), but it remains unclear which factors determine the size of these benefits. As a secondary analysis of the DUALITY trial, the aim of this study was to assess the determinants of the effect size after 2 types of dual-task practice. METHODS: We randomly allocated 121 participants with PD to receive either integrated or consecutive dual-task training. Dual-task walking performance was assessed during (i) a backward digit span task (digit), (ii) an auditory Stroop task (Stroop), and (iii) a functional mobile phone task. Baseline descriptive, motor, and cognitive variables were correlated with the change in dual-task gait velocity after the intervention. Factors correlated with the change in dual-task gait velocity postintervention (P < 0.20) were entered into a stepwise forward multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: Lower dual-task gait velocity and higher cognitive capacity (Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Cognition [ScopaCog]) at baseline were related to larger improvements in dual-task gait velocity after both integrated and consecutive dual-task training for all 3 tasks (β[gait] = -0.45, β[ScopaCog] = 0.34, R = 0.23, P < 0.001, for digit; β[gait] = -0.52, β[ScopaCog] = 0.29, R = 0.26, P < 0.001, for Stroop; and β[gait] = -0.40, β[ScopaCog] = 0.30, R = 0.18, P < 0.001, for mobile phone task). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:Participants with PD who showed a slow dual-task gait velocity and good cognitive functioning at baseline benefited most from the dual-task training, irrespective of the type of training and type of dual-task outcome.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A242).
Authors: Phat L Chang; Felicia C Goldstein; Kathryn L Burgio; Jorge L Juncos; Gerald McGwin; Lisa Muirhead; Alayne D Markland; Theodore M Johnson; Camille P Vaughan Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Karina Pitombeira Pereira-Pedro; Iris Machado de Oliveira; Irimia Mollinedo-Cardalda; José M Cancela-Carral Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 4.614
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