Cargando…

Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND: Two different approaches have been adopted when applying motor imagery (MI) to stroke patients. MI can be conducted either added to conventional physiotherapy or integrated within therapy sessions. The proposed study aims to compare the efficacy of embedded MI to an added MI intervention...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schuster, Corina, Butler, Jenny, Andrews, Brian, Kischka, Udo, Ettlin, Thierry
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19849835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-97
_version_ 1782173983420973056
author Schuster, Corina
Butler, Jenny
Andrews, Brian
Kischka, Udo
Ettlin, Thierry
author_facet Schuster, Corina
Butler, Jenny
Andrews, Brian
Kischka, Udo
Ettlin, Thierry
author_sort Schuster, Corina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Two different approaches have been adopted when applying motor imagery (MI) to stroke patients. MI can be conducted either added to conventional physiotherapy or integrated within therapy sessions. The proposed study aims to compare the efficacy of embedded MI to an added MI intervention. Evidence from pilot studies reported in the literature suggests that both approaches can improve performance of a complex motor skill involving whole body movements, however, it remains to be demonstrated, which is the more effective one. METHODS/DESIGN: A single blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a pre-post intervention design will be carried out. The study design includes two experimental groups and a control group (CG). Both experimental groups (EG1, EG2) will receive physical practice of a clinical relevant motor task ('Going down, laying on the floor, and getting up again') over a two week intervention period: EG1 with embedded MI training, EG2 with MI training added after physiotherapy. The CG will receive standard physiotherapy intervention and an additional control intervention not related to MI. The primary study outcome is the time difference to perform the task from pre to post-intervention. Secondary outcomes include level of help needed, stages of motor task completion, degree of motor impairment, balance ability, fear of falling measure, motivation score, and motor imagery ability score. Four data collection points are proposed: twice during baseline phase, once following the intervention period, and once after a two week follow up. A nested qualitative part should add an important insight into patients' experience and attitudes towards MI. Semi-structured interviews of six to ten patients, who participate in the RCT, will be conducted to investigate patients' previous experience with MI and their expectations towards the MI intervention in the study. Patients will be interviewed prior and after the intervention period. DISCUSSION: Results will determine whether embedded MI is superior to added MI. Findings of the semi-structured interviews will help to integrate patient's expectations of MI interventions in the design of research studies to improve practical applicability using MI as an adjunct therapy technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00858910
format Text
id pubmed-2775030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27750302009-11-10 Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach Schuster, Corina Butler, Jenny Andrews, Brian Kischka, Udo Ettlin, Thierry Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Two different approaches have been adopted when applying motor imagery (MI) to stroke patients. MI can be conducted either added to conventional physiotherapy or integrated within therapy sessions. The proposed study aims to compare the efficacy of embedded MI to an added MI intervention. Evidence from pilot studies reported in the literature suggests that both approaches can improve performance of a complex motor skill involving whole body movements, however, it remains to be demonstrated, which is the more effective one. METHODS/DESIGN: A single blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a pre-post intervention design will be carried out. The study design includes two experimental groups and a control group (CG). Both experimental groups (EG1, EG2) will receive physical practice of a clinical relevant motor task ('Going down, laying on the floor, and getting up again') over a two week intervention period: EG1 with embedded MI training, EG2 with MI training added after physiotherapy. The CG will receive standard physiotherapy intervention and an additional control intervention not related to MI. The primary study outcome is the time difference to perform the task from pre to post-intervention. Secondary outcomes include level of help needed, stages of motor task completion, degree of motor impairment, balance ability, fear of falling measure, motivation score, and motor imagery ability score. Four data collection points are proposed: twice during baseline phase, once following the intervention period, and once after a two week follow up. A nested qualitative part should add an important insight into patients' experience and attitudes towards MI. Semi-structured interviews of six to ten patients, who participate in the RCT, will be conducted to investigate patients' previous experience with MI and their expectations towards the MI intervention in the study. Patients will be interviewed prior and after the intervention period. DISCUSSION: Results will determine whether embedded MI is superior to added MI. Findings of the semi-structured interviews will help to integrate patient's expectations of MI interventions in the design of research studies to improve practical applicability using MI as an adjunct therapy technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00858910 BioMed Central 2009-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC2775030/ /pubmed/19849835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-97 Text en Copyright © 2009 Schuster et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Schuster, Corina
Butler, Jenny
Andrews, Brian
Kischka, Udo
Ettlin, Thierry
Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title_full Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title_fullStr Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title_short Comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
title_sort comparison of embedded and added motor imagery training in patients after stroke: study protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial using a mixed methods approach
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19849835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-97
work_keys_str_mv AT schustercorina comparisonofembeddedandaddedmotorimagerytraininginpatientsafterstrokestudyprotocolofarandomisedcontrolledpilottrialusingamixedmethodsapproach
AT butlerjenny comparisonofembeddedandaddedmotorimagerytraininginpatientsafterstrokestudyprotocolofarandomisedcontrolledpilottrialusingamixedmethodsapproach
AT andrewsbrian comparisonofembeddedandaddedmotorimagerytraininginpatientsafterstrokestudyprotocolofarandomisedcontrolledpilottrialusingamixedmethodsapproach
AT kischkaudo comparisonofembeddedandaddedmotorimagerytraininginpatientsafterstrokestudyprotocolofarandomisedcontrolledpilottrialusingamixedmethodsapproach
AT ettlinthierry comparisonofembeddedandaddedmotorimagerytraininginpatientsafterstrokestudyprotocolofarandomisedcontrolledpilottrialusingamixedmethodsapproach