COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF TASK-ORIENTED PROGRAM AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE TRAINING ON BALANCE, GAIT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH HEMIPLEGIC STROKE

S. Maqbool, S. Kamran, S. Naz, A. Amjad, T. Maqbool
{"title":"COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF TASK-ORIENTED PROGRAM AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE TRAINING ON BALANCE, GAIT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH HEMIPLEGIC STROKE","authors":"S. Maqbool, S. Kamran, S. Naz, A. Amjad, T. Maqbool","doi":"10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared the effectiveness of a Task-Oriented Program and Proprioceptive Training in improving balance, gait, and quality of life in a specific population. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of the Task-Oriented Program and Proprioceptive Training on participants' balance, gait, and quality of life. Methods: The study included two treatment groups: Group A (Task-Oriented Program) and Group B (Proprioceptive Training). The gender distribution and frequencies were assessed within each group. Various variables were measured at different time points, and tests for normality were conducted. Independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze the differences in mean scores between the two groups. Results: In Group A, comprising 36 participants, there were 17 males (47.2%) and 19 females (52.8%), while Group B, also with 36 participants, consisted of 16 males (44.4%) and 20 females (55.6%). At baseline, no significant difference was observed in mean Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores between the two groups. However, after four weeks of intervention, Group A demonstrated significantly higher BBS scores than Group B (mean difference = 6.26, p < 0.001). This trend continued at week 8, with Group A showing a substantial advantage (mean difference = 14.56, p < 0.001). Regarding Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) scores, similar patterns emerged. At baseline, no significant difference was found. Still, after four weeks, Group A had significantly higher MAS scores than Group B (mean difference = 7.21, p < 0.001), which further increased at week 8 (mean difference = 13.88, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The Task-Oriented Program yielded superior outcomes compared to Proprioceptive Training in improving participants' balance, gait, and quality of life, as indicated by significantly higher BBS and MAS scores. These findings highlight the effectiveness of the Task-Oriented Program as an intervention for enhancing balance and motor performance in the specific population studied.","PeriodicalId":504575,"journal":{"name":"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of a Task-Oriented Program and Proprioceptive Training in improving balance, gait, and quality of life in a specific population. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of the Task-Oriented Program and Proprioceptive Training on participants' balance, gait, and quality of life. Methods: The study included two treatment groups: Group A (Task-Oriented Program) and Group B (Proprioceptive Training). The gender distribution and frequencies were assessed within each group. Various variables were measured at different time points, and tests for normality were conducted. Independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze the differences in mean scores between the two groups. Results: In Group A, comprising 36 participants, there were 17 males (47.2%) and 19 females (52.8%), while Group B, also with 36 participants, consisted of 16 males (44.4%) and 20 females (55.6%). At baseline, no significant difference was observed in mean Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores between the two groups. However, after four weeks of intervention, Group A demonstrated significantly higher BBS scores than Group B (mean difference = 6.26, p < 0.001). This trend continued at week 8, with Group A showing a substantial advantage (mean difference = 14.56, p < 0.001). Regarding Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) scores, similar patterns emerged. At baseline, no significant difference was found. Still, after four weeks, Group A had significantly higher MAS scores than Group B (mean difference = 7.21, p < 0.001), which further increased at week 8 (mean difference = 13.88, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The Task-Oriented Program yielded superior outcomes compared to Proprioceptive Training in improving participants' balance, gait, and quality of life, as indicated by significantly higher BBS and MAS scores. These findings highlight the effectiveness of the Task-Oriented Program as an intervention for enhancing balance and motor performance in the specific population studied.
任务导向计划和本体感觉训练对中风偏瘫患者的平衡、步态和生活质量的比较效果
本研究比较了任务导向计划和肌感觉训练在改善特定人群的平衡、步态和生活质量方面的效果。研究目的本研究的目的是评估和比较任务导向计划和感知训练对参与者的平衡、步态和生活质量的影响。研究方法研究包括两个治疗组:A组(以任务为导向的计划)和B组(感知训练)。每组都对性别分布和频率进行了评估。在不同的时间点测量各种变量,并进行正态性检验。对两组平均得分的差异进行了独立样本 t 检验。结果A 组有 36 人,其中男性 17 人(47.2%),女性 19 人(52.8%);B 组也有 36 人,其中男性 16 人(44.4%),女性 20 人(55.6%)。基线时,两组的平均伯格平衡量表(BBS)得分无明显差异。然而,干预四周后,A 组的 BBS 评分明显高于 B 组(平均差异 = 6.26,p < 0.001)。这一趋势在第 8 周时仍在继续,A 组显示出巨大优势(平均差异 = 14.56,p < 0.001)。在运动评估量表(MAS)得分方面,也出现了类似的模式。在基线时,没有发现明显的差异。但在四周后,A 组的运动评估量表得分明显高于 B 组(平均差异 = 7.21,p < 0.001),在第八周时,差异进一步扩大(平均差异 = 13.88,p < 0.001)。结论以任务为导向的计划在改善参与者的平衡、步态和生活质量方面的效果优于肌感觉训练,这体现在 BBS 和 MAS 分数的显著提高上。这些研究结果凸显了任务导向计划作为一种干预措施,在提高特定人群的平衡能力和运动表现方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信