Feldenkrais method and functionality in Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Background: The second most common age-related chronic neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer's disease is Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: The focus of this study was to improve the functional capabilities of the participants with PD. Study groups: The PD participants were randomized into two groups: Feldenkrais and control. Methods: The Feldenkrais group underwent 50 sessions of an exercise program based on the Feldenkrais method. The control group received educational lectures during this period. Unified Parkinson's Disease Rate Scale (UPDRSsession III), mini-mental state evaluation (MMSE), Hoehn and Yahr scale, and functional tests (figure-of-eight walk test, timed-up-and-go test, rollover task, 360 degrees turnin-place, functional-reach test, sitting-and-standing test, Berg balance scale (BBS), and hip-flexion strength) were assessed in both groups. Procedures during the 50 sessions were conducted in an appropriate room, twice-a-week, on alternate days and lasted 60 min. Results: Thirty subjects were randomly divided into two groups: the Feldenkrais (n = 15) and the control (n = 15) group. The Feldenkrais group presented significantly better in functional tests (p < 0.05) when compared to the control group. The control group received lower scores after the

Physical Therapist Management of Parkinson Disease: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Physical Therapy Association

“…Ten high-quality studies 40 , 41 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 175–177 , 181 , 184 and 8 moderate-quality studies 83 , 192–195 , 201 , 212 , 214 were in favor of community-based exercise for improving function (walk tests, balance, mobility, falls, fall fear/risk, and ADLs). These community-based exercise programs included tai chi, 175 resistance training, 53 action observation training, 181 dance, 177 , 184 , 195 balance exercise and lower extremity strengthening, 40 , 41 , 47 , 83 Pilates, 192 , 194 Nordic walk, 193 qigong, 201 mindful meditation, 214 Feldenkrais, 212 and power yoga.…”

“…Ten high-quality studies 40 , 41 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 175–177 , 181 , 184 and 8 moderate-quality studies 83 , 192–195 , 201 , 212 , 214 were in favor of community-based exercise for improving function (walk tests, balance, mobility, falls, fall fear/risk, and ADLs). These community-based exercise programs included tai chi, 175 resistance training, 53 action observation training, 181 dance, 177 , 184 , 195 balance exercise and lower extremity strengthening, 40 , 41 , 47 , 83 Pilates, 192 , 194 Nordic walk, 193 qigong, 201 mindful meditation, 214 Feldenkrais, 212 and power yoga. 203 High-speed yoga 52 and action observation training 181 led to improvements in gait speed, and tai chi and dance led to improvements in functional mobility as measured by the TUG test and improvements in turning as measured by the 360-degree Turn Test and 3-dimensional motion analysis.…”

“… 203 High-speed yoga 52 and action observation training 181 led to improvements in gait speed, and tai chi and dance led to improvements in functional mobility as measured by the TUG test and improvements in turning as measured by the 360-degree Turn Test and 3-dimensional motion analysis. 175–177 , 184 , 212 …”

Effects of the Feldenkrais Method as a Physiotherapy Tool: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…The populations found were heterogeneous. Three of the studies investigated subjects with cervical, dorsal or shoulder pain [ 14 , 19 , 23 ], three of them subjects with chronic low back pain [ 13 , 15 , 16 ], two of them subjects with multiple sclerosis [ 22 , 26 ], two of them subjects with Parkinson’s disease [ 27 , 28 ], four of them elderly subjects [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 24 ], one trial investigated children with nocturnal bruxism [ 25 ] and one investigated middle-aged subjects with intellectual disability [ 21 ].…”

“…The effects of FM in subjects with Parkinson’s disease were analyzed in two studies with identical samples and protocol (total number of participants n = 30) [ 27 , 28 ]. The mean age was 61 years.…”