Implementing circuit class training can increase therapy time and functional independence in people with stroke receiving inpatient rehabilitation: findings from a retrospective observational clinical audit

McDonell, Imogen; Barr, Christopher; Berg, Maayken van den

doi:10.1080/09593985.2023.2172634

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the comparative analysis of circuit class training (CCT) and individual, task-specific training (ITST) on chronic stroke patients, the investigation yielded no significant differences between the two modalities in terms of reducing upper extremity spasticity, enhancing motor function, or improving the quality of life. Both interventions demonstrated comparable efficacy, echoing the findings of previous studies that have underscored the value of task-specific training in mitigating spasticity and fostering motor function recovery in stroke survivors (6,11,(23)(24)(25)(26). This parity suggests that the choice between CCT and ITST may be informed more by patient preference, logistical considerations, and available resources rather than by a differential impact on therapeutic outcomes (27).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Effects of Circuit Class Training Versus Individual, Task Specific Training on Upper Extremity Function in Chronic Stroke Patients

Baig,

Azmat

2024

JHRR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stroke is a leading contributor to disability globally, emphasizing the need for effective rehabilitation techniques. Circuit class training (CCT) and individual, task-specific training (ITST) have emerged as potential approaches for enhancing upper extremity function in stroke survivors. Comparative analyses of their efficacy, especially among chronic stroke patients, are scant. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the impacts of CCT and ITST on upper extremity spasticity, motor function, and quality of life in individuals with chronic stroke. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 36 chronic stroke patients were allocated to either CCT or ITST groups. Participants were aged 45-70 years, had experienced a single stroke episode, and were at least 6 months post-stroke, with specific inclusion criteria regarding spasticity and motor function levels. The interventions were delivered for 1.5 hours daily, five days a week, over eight weeks. Outcomes were measured using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) for spasticity, Functional Independence Measure for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) for motor function, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL) scale for quality of life, analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results: Post-intervention, both CCT and ITST participants exhibited significant improvements in their outcomes. MAS scores showed a reduction in spasticity, with average improvements not significantly differing between the groups. FMA-UE scores increased by an average of 10 points in both groups, indicating enhanced motor function without a significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). SS-QOL scores improved by an average of 20 points in each group, reflecting better quality of life, with no significant intergroup difference observed. Conclusion: The study concludes that CCT and ITST are equally effective in ameliorating upper extremity spasticity, motor function, and quality of life among chronic stroke patients. The selection between CCT and ITST can thus be personalized based on patient preferences, available resources, and logistical considerations, maintaining rehabilitation efficacy.

show abstract