You are attacking the problem from the wrong side. The problem is that doctors are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to assist your recovery. Have them stop the 5 causes of the neuronal cascade of death in the first week. That would assist your recovery vastly more than rehab which only fully works 10% of the time. And just why the fuck are you studying environmental enrichment? Hasn't it been proven enough by this enriched environment talked about by Dr. Dale Corbett in 2011?
Or Margaret Yekutiel who wrote a whole book about it in 2001, 'Sensory Re-Education of the Hand After Stroke'? Or didn't you know about that book? 20 years and you are THAT FUCKING INCOMPETENT?
I will never follow the polite rules of Dale Carnegie, 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
Politeness
will never solve anything in stroke.
The latest here:
EXPRESS: Altering the rehabilitation environment to improve stroke survivor activity (AREISSA): a Phase II trial.
Abstract
Background:
Environmental enrichment involves organisation of the environment and provision of equipment to facilitate engagement in physical, cognitive and social activity. In animals with stroke, it promotes brain plasticity and recovery.
Aims:
To assess the feasibility and safety of a patient-driven model of environmental enrichment incorporating access to communal and individual environmental enrichment.
Methods:
A non-randomised cluster trial with blinded measurement involving people with stroke (n=193) in 4 rehabilitation units was carried out. Feasibility was operationalised as activity 10 days after admission to rehabilitation and availability of environmental enrichment. Safety was measured as falls and serious adverse events. Benefit was measured as clinical outcomes at 3 months, by an assessor blinded to group.
Results:
The experimental group (n=91) spent 7% (95% CI -14 to 0) less time inactive, 9% (95% CI 0 to 19) more time physically, and 6% (95% CI 2 to 10) more time socially active than the control group (n=102). Communal environmental enrichment was available 100% of the time, but individual environmental enrichment was rarely within reach (24%) or sight (39%). There were no between-group differences in serious adverse events or falls at discharge or 3 months nor in clinical outcomes at 3 months.
Conclusions:
This
patient-driven model of environmental enrichment was feasible and safe.
However, the very modest increase in activity by people with stroke, and
the lack of benefit in clinical outcomes 3 months after stroke do not
provide justification for an efficacy trial.(Really, that was your conclusion?)
Clinical Trial Registration: ANZCTR 12613000796785
Words: 245
No comments:
Post a Comment