Effects of mental practice embedded in daily therapy compared to therapy as usual in adult stroke patients in Dutch nursing homes: design of a randomised controlled trial

 Did your doctor implement the results from this study from 16 years ago? Or is your doctor so fucking incompetent that nothing was done? There are no excuses for doing nothing! Or implementing these?

• mental practice (16 posts to July 2015)

Do you prefer your doctor incompetence in this NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING?

Effects of mental practice embedded in daily therapy compared to therapy as usual in adult stroke patients in Dutch nursing homes: design of a randomised controlled trial

• Susy M Braun,
• Anna J Beurskens,
• Susanne M van Kroonenburgh,
• Jeroen Demarteau,
• Jos M Schols &
• Derick T Wade 

BMC Neurology volume 7, Article number: 34 (2007) Cite this article

• 11k Accesses

• 17 Citations

• Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Mental practice as an additional cognitive therapy is getting increased attention in stroke rehabilitation. A systematic review shows some evidence that several techniques in which movements are rehearsed mentally might be effective but not enough to be certain. This trial investigates whether mental practice can contribute to a quicker and/or better recovery of stroke in two Dutch nursing homes. The objective is to investigate the therapeutic potential of mental practice embedded in daily therapy to improve individually chosen daily activities of adult stroke patients compared to therapy as usual. In addition, we will investigate prognostic variables and feasibility (process evaluation).

Methods

A randomised, controlled, observer masked prospective trial will be conducted with adult stroke patients in the (sub)acute phase of stroke recovery. Over a six weeks intervention period the control group will receive multi professional therapy as usual. Patients in the experimental group will be instructed how to perform mental practice, and will receive care as usual in which mental practice is embedded in physical, occupation and speech therapy sessions. Outcome will be assessed at six weeks and six months. The primary outcome measure is the patient-perceived effect on performance of daily activities as assessed by an 11-point Likert Scale. Secondary outcomes are: Motricity Index, Nine Hole Peg Test, Barthel Index, Timed up and Go, 10 metres walking test, Rivermead Mobility Index. A sample size of the patients group and all therapists will be interviewed on their opinion of the experimental program to assess feasibility. All patients are asked to keep a log to determine unguided training intensity.

Discussion

Advantages and disadvantages of several aspects of the chosen design are discussed.

Trial registration

ISRCTN27582267