Long walking tests and patient-reported MSWS-12 were more appropriate than short walking tests in detecting clinically meaningful improvement after physical rehabilitation, particularly the MSWS-12 for moderate to severely disabled pwMS.

Clinical reasoning is essential in physical therapy practice. Instrumental approaches and more recent narrative approaches to clinical reasoning guide physical therapists in their understanding of the patient's movement disturbances and help them to plan strategies to improve function. To the extent that instrumental and/or narrative models of clinical reasoning represent impairments as mere physical disturbances, we argue that such models remain incomplete. We draw on a phenomenologically inspired approach to embodied cognition (termed "enactivism") to suggest that the dynamics of lived bodily engagement between physical therapist and patient contribute to and help to constitute the clinical reasoning process. This article outlines the phenomenologically informed enactive perspective on clinical reasoning, with special reference to clinical work that addresses impairments as sequelae of neurological diseases.

ObjectivesWalking impairments are common in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Trunk control is a prerequisite for walking; however, knowledge regarding whether core stability and balance training influence walking is limited. This study aimed to investigate the immediate and long‐term effects of a group‐based, individualized, comprehensive core stability and balance intervention (GroupCoreDIST) compared with those of standard care on walking.MethodsThis assessor‐blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial included 80 participants (Expanded Disability Status Scale scores 1–6.5) randomly allocated to GroupCoreDIST, conducted in groups of three for 60 min three times per week for 6 weeks (18 sessions) or standard care (n = 40/40). One participant attended no posttests, leaving 79 subjects for intention‐to‐treat analysis. The assessments were performed at baseline and at Weeks 7, 18, and 30. Outcomes included the 2‐min walk test (2MWT), 10‐m walk test‐preferred/fast/slow speed (10MWT), Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale‐12 (MSWS‐12), Patient Global Impression of Change‐walking (PGIC‐walking), Rivermead Visual Gait Assessment (RVGA), and ActiGraphsWgt3X‐BT activity monitors (ActiGraph). The statistical analyses included repeated‐measures mixed models performed in IBM SPSS Version 24.ResultsThere were no significant between‐group differences in the outcome measurements at baseline. The mean differences between groups were significant at all follow‐up time points in favour of GroupCoreDIST for the 2MWT, 16.7 m at 7 weeks (95% CI [8.15, 25.25], 15.08 m at 18 weeks (95% CI [6.39, 23.77]) and 16.38 m at 30 weeks (95% CI [7.65, 25.12]; and the PGIC‐walking, 0.89 points at 7 weeks (95% CI [1.34, 0.45]), 0.97 points at 18 weeks (95% CI [1.42, 0.52]), and 0.93 points at 30 weeks (95% CI [1.39, 0.48]; all p ≤ .001). The 10MWT‐fast speed and the MSWS‐12 showed significant between‐group differences at 7 and 18 weeks and the RVGA at 7 weeks. No between‐group differences were found regarding activity level (ActiGraph) or the 10MWT‐preferred or slow speed.ConclusionCompared with standard care, GroupCoreDIST significantly improved walking immediately after the intervention for up to 24 weeks of follow‐up.