运动学习策略在神经病学和老年人群中的作用综述:一个系统的地图回顾。

IF 1.9 Q2 REHABILITATION
Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Guus Rothuizen, Elmar Kal, Andreas Rothgangel, Susy Braun
{"title":"运动学习策略在神经病学和老年人群中的作用综述:一个系统的地图回顾。","authors":"Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Guus Rothuizen, Elmar Kal, Andreas Rothgangel, Susy Braun","doi":"10.1016/j.arrct.2024.100379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of 7 commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurologic and geriatric populations.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of 7 motor learning strategies-errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery-within the geriatric and neurologic population.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two thousand and ninety-nine articles were identified. After screening, 87 articles were included for further analysis. Two reviewers extracted descriptive data regarding the population, type of motor learning strategy/intervention, frequency and total duration intervention, task trained, movement performance measures, assessment time points, and between-group effects of the included studies. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged in 2010. Eight populations were included, for example, Parkinson's and stroke. Included studies were not equally balanced: analogy learning (n=2), errorless learning and trial-and-error learning (n=5), mental practice (n=19), observational learning (n=11), discovery learning (n=0), and dual-tasking (n=50). Overall studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Four studies were deemed sufficiently reliable to interpret effects. Positive trends regarding the effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning, and movement imagery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, especially toward dual-tasking. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies to improve functional studies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":72291,"journal":{"name":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","volume":"6 4","pages":"100379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overview of Effects of Motor Learning Strategies in Neurologic and Geriatric Populations: A Systematic Mapping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Guus Rothuizen, Elmar Kal, Andreas Rothgangel, Susy Braun\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arrct.2024.100379\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of 7 commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurologic and geriatric populations.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of 7 motor learning strategies-errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery-within the geriatric and neurologic population.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two thousand and ninety-nine articles were identified. After screening, 87 articles were included for further analysis. Two reviewers extracted descriptive data regarding the population, type of motor learning strategy/intervention, frequency and total duration intervention, task trained, movement performance measures, assessment time points, and between-group effects of the included studies. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged in 2010. Eight populations were included, for example, Parkinson's and stroke. Included studies were not equally balanced: analogy learning (n=2), errorless learning and trial-and-error learning (n=5), mental practice (n=19), observational learning (n=11), discovery learning (n=0), and dual-tasking (n=50). Overall studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Four studies were deemed sufficiently reliable to interpret effects. Positive trends regarding the effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning, and movement imagery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, especially toward dual-tasking. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies to improve functional studies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"100379\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734024/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2024.100379\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2024.100379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对7种常用的运动学习策略在老年神经系统和老年人群中改善功能任务的影响的研究现状进行综述。数据来源:检索PubMed, CINAHL, Embase。研究选择:在老年和神经学人群中,对7种运动学习策略(无错误学习、类比学习、观察学习、试错学习、双任务学习、发现学习和运动图像)的有效性进行了随机对照试验的系统回顾。数据提取:确定了2999篇文章。筛选后纳入87篇文献进行进一步分析。两名评论者提取了关于纳入研究的人群、运动学习策略/干预类型、干预频率和总持续时间、训练任务、运动表现测量、评估时间点和组间效应的描述性数据。偏倚风险2工具用于评估偏倚;此外,对论文进行了样本量的筛选。数据综合:关于目标运动学习策略的影响的确定文章大约始于2000年,主要出现在2010年。其中包括8个人群,比如帕金森氏症和中风患者。纳入的研究并不均衡:类比学习(n=2)、无错误学习和试错学习(n=5)、心理练习(n=19)、观察学习(n=11)、发现学习(n=0)和双重任务(n=50)。总体研究显示有中等到高度的偏倚风险。四项研究被认为足够可靠来解释效果。在双重任务、观察性学习和运动意象方面观察到积极的趋势。结论:研究结果显示运动学习干预的研究分布不均匀,特别是对双任务的研究。方法上的缺陷使得很难得出关于运动学习策略对改善功能研究的有效性的确切结论。强烈建议未来的研究人员遵循有助于保持方法质量的指导方针。此外,还应考虑适合复杂实际情况的替代设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overview of Effects of Motor Learning Strategies in Neurologic and Geriatric Populations: A Systematic Mapping Review.

Objective: To provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of 7 commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurologic and geriatric populations.

Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched.

Study selection: A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of 7 motor learning strategies-errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery-within the geriatric and neurologic population.

Data extraction: Two thousand and ninety-nine articles were identified. After screening, 87 articles were included for further analysis. Two reviewers extracted descriptive data regarding the population, type of motor learning strategy/intervention, frequency and total duration intervention, task trained, movement performance measures, assessment time points, and between-group effects of the included studies. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification.

Data synthesis: Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged in 2010. Eight populations were included, for example, Parkinson's and stroke. Included studies were not equally balanced: analogy learning (n=2), errorless learning and trial-and-error learning (n=5), mental practice (n=19), observational learning (n=11), discovery learning (n=0), and dual-tasking (n=50). Overall studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Four studies were deemed sufficiently reliable to interpret effects. Positive trends regarding the effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning, and movement imagery.

Conclusions: Findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, especially toward dual-tasking. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies to improve functional studies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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