Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy

Objective: To determine the opinions of patients with stroke and therapists about constraint-induced movement therapy (CIT). Subjects and intervention: Two hundred and eight patients with stroke in the northeastern USA responded to a self-report questionnaire administered through the mail and via te...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical rehabilitation 2002-02, Vol.16 (1), p.55-60
Main Authors: Page, Stephen J, Levine, Peter, Sisto, Sueann, Bond, Quin, Johnston, Mark V
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Attitude of Health Personnel
Attitudes
Biological and medical sciences
Diseases of the nervous system
Exercise Therapy
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Movement therapy
Occupational therapists
Patient Compliance
Patient Satisfaction
Patients
Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)
Rehabilitation
Restraint, Physical
Stroke - physiopathology
Stroke Rehabilitation
Strokes
Surveys
USA
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: To determine the opinions of patients with stroke and therapists about constraint-induced movement therapy (CIT). Subjects and intervention: Two hundred and eight patients with stroke in the northeastern USA responded to a self-report questionnaire administered through the mail and via telephone interviews. A similar questionnaire was administered to 85 physical and occupational therapists in the northeastern USA during their clinical staff meetings. The questionnaire described CIT to participants using excerpts from a recently published CIT study. Subjects then responded to various statements concerning their opinions of the protocol and supplied rationale for their opinions. Results: Sixty-eight per cent of patients said they were not interested in participating in CIT, citing concerns with the practice schedule and the restrictive device schedule. Therapists cited concerns about patient adherence and safety, and speculated that facilities may not have the clinical resources to provide CIT. Conclusions: Patients with stroke and therapists in some environments may hold sceptical views about the utility of CIT. Although it has been shown to be effective in laboratory research, CIT may have low clinical practicality in some environments.
ISSN:0269-2155
1477-0873
DOI:10.1191/0269215502cr473oa