ContentList volumes - List articles in this issue
Home-based telerehabilitation shows improved upper limb function in adults with chronic stroke: A pilot study
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study investigates the use of telerehabilitation to improve upper limb performance in chronic stages of stroke recovery.
DESIGN: Intervention study with pre/post/one month follow-up tests.
METHODS: Seven adults with chronic stroke participated in the study. Tests consisted of lab-based clinical and kinematic assessments. Participants completed the Upper Limb Training and Assessment (ULTrA) program at home. Training was 5 days/week, 60 min/day for 6 weeks with intermittent supervision of participants.
RESULTS: Participants showed improvements in the training program tasks as well as clinical and kinematic assessments. Results also suggest there may be auxiliary benefits in cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: A home-based telerehabilitation program is a viable approach to provide rehabilitation in chronic stages of stroke.
Jeanne Langan, Kelsey DeLave, Lauren Phillips, Percival Pangilinan, Susan H. Brown
Rehabilitation Science, School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. E-mail: email@example.com
2. Demaerschalk BM. Telestrokologists: treating stroke patients here, there, and everywhere with telemedicine. Semin Neurol 2010; 30: 477–491.
3. Brown SH, Lewis CA, McCarthy JM, Doyle ST, Hurvitz EA. The effects of Internet-based home training on upper limb function in adults with cerebral palsy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24: 575–583.
4. Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002; 3: 228–236.
5. Paolucci S, Grasso MG, Antonucci G, Bragoni M, Troisi E, Morelli D, et al. Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 2–8.
6. Byl NN, Pitsch EA, Abrams GM. Functional outcomes can vary by dose: learning-based sensorimotor training for patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 494–504.
7. Bogard K, Wolf S, Zhang Q, Thompson P, Morris D, Nichols-Larsen D. Can the Wolf Motor Function Test Be Streamlined? Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2009; 23: 422–428.
8. Contreras-Vidal JL, Teulings HL, Stelmach GE. Elderly subjects are impaired in spatial coordination in fine motor control. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1998; 100: 25–35.
9. Falleti MG, Maruff P, Collie A, Darby DG. Practice effects associated with the repeated assessment of cognitive function using the CogState battery at 10-minute, one week and one month test-retest intervals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2006; 28: 1095–1112.
10. Maruff P, Thomas E, Cysique L, Brew B, Collie A, Snyder P, et al. Validity of the CogState Brief Battery: Relationship to Standardized Tests and Sensitivity to Cognitive Impairment in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Schizophrenia, and AIDS Dementia Complex. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2009; 24: 165–178.
11. Goble DJ, Brown SH. Task-dependent asymmetries in the utilization of proprioceptive feedback for goal-directed movement. Exp Brain Res 2007; 180: 693–704.
12. Kotrlik JW and Williams HA. The incorporation of effect size in information technology, learning and performance research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 2003; 21: 1–7.
13. Langhammer B, Stanghelle JK. Bobath or motor relearning programme? A follow-up one and four years post stroke. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 731–734.
14. Dishman RK. Exercise compliance – a new view for public-health. Physician Sportsmed 1986; 14: 127–145.
View at PubMed