Niklas Löfgren1, David Conradsson, Conran Joseph, Breiffni Leavy, Maria Hagströmer, Erika Franzén. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (N.L., D.C., C.J., B.L., M.H., E.F.); Function Area Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Allied Health Professionals Function, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (N.L., D.C., B.L., M.H., E.F.); Community Health Sciences Faculty, Physiotherapy Department, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa (C.J.); and Stockholms Sjukhem, R&D Unit, Stockholm, Sweden (E.F., B.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although increasing evidence supports the benefit- of exercise among people with Parkinson disease (PwPD), it is unclear whether a given exercise modality suits all PwPD, given the heterogeneity of the disease. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with responsiveness to a highly challenging training intervention that incorporated dual-task exercises. METHODS: Forty-seven PwPD (mean age: 73 years; 19 females, Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3) who had participated in 10 weeks of highly challenging gait and balance training were included. Baseline demographics, disease-related factors, physical and cognitive ability, and perceived health were used for the prediction of percent change in balance performance (the Mini-BESTest) and comfortable gait speed between the pre- and postassessments, using multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of the variance of change in balance performance was explained by General Health Perceptions (β = -0.36), the Timed Up and Go test (β = -0.33), and the single-task performance of a cognitive task (β = -0.24). Forty-nine percent of change in gait speed was explained by gait speed while performing a dual task (β = -0.46), dual-task interference while walking (β = 0.43), time to complete the Timed Up and Go test (β = -0.29), and percent error on a cognitive task (β = -0.25). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results may suggest that the PwPD with overall lower perceived health, functional mobility, and cognitive functions are the ones most likely to benefit from highly challenging and attention-demanding gait and balance training.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A240).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although increasing evidence supports the benefit- of exercise among people with Parkinson disease (PwPD), it is unclear whether a given exercise modality suits all PwPD, given the heterogeneity of the disease. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with responsiveness to a highly challenging training intervention that incorporated dual-task exercises. METHODS: Forty-seven PwPD (mean age: 73 years; 19 females, Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3) who had participated in 10 weeks of highly challenging gait and balance training were included. Baseline demographics, disease-related factors, physical and cognitive ability, and perceived health were used for the prediction of percent change in balance performance (the Mini-BESTest) and comfortable gait speed between the pre- and postassessments, using multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of the variance of change in balance performance was explained by General Health Perceptions (β = -0.36), the Timed Up and Go test (β = -0.33), and the single-task performance of a cognitive task (β = -0.24). Forty-nine percent of change in gait speed was explained by gait speed while performing a dual task (β = -0.46), dual-task interference while walking (β = 0.43), time to complete the Timed Up and Go test (β = -0.29), and percent error on a cognitive task (β = -0.25). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results may suggest that the PwPD with overall lower perceived health, functional mobility, and cognitive functions are the ones most likely to benefit from highly challenging and attention-demanding gait and balance training.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A240).
Authors: Anoop Sheshadri; Piyawan Kittiskulnam; Cynthia Delgado; Rebecca L Sudore; Jennifer C Lai; Kirsten L Johansen Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Carla Silva-Batista; Anjanibhargavi Ragothaman; Martina Mancini; Patricia Carlson-Kuhta; Graham Harker; Se Hee Jung; John G Nutt; Damien A Fair; Fay B Horak; Oscar Miranda-Domínguez Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Malin Freidle; Hanna Johansson; Urban Ekman; Alexander V Lebedev; Ellika Schalling; William H Thompson; Per Svenningsson; Martin Lövdén; Alonso Abney; Franziska Albrecht; Hanna Steurer; Breiffni Leavy; Staffan Holmin; Maria Hagströmer; Erika Franzén Journal: NPJ Parkinsons Dis Date: 2022-01-21