卒中或其他获得性脑损伤后局灶性痉挛目标设定和物理治疗分类的meta分析。

0 REHABILITATION
Advances in rehabilitation science and practice Pub Date : 2025-06-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/27536351251343520
Stephen Ashford, Jorge Jacinto, Klemens Fheodoroff, Lynne Turner-Stokes
{"title":"卒中或其他获得性脑损伤后局灶性痉挛目标设定和物理治疗分类的meta分析。","authors":"Stephen Ashford, Jorge Jacinto, Klemens Fheodoroff, Lynne Turner-Stokes","doi":"10.1177/27536351251343520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Setting goals and planning treatment to attain those goals is often integral to rehabilitation practice, particularly when managing spasticity following stroke or other brain injury. Optimal treatment planning and provision using an algorithm based on mapping goals and treatments, may improve outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed goal setting and treatment interventions through secondary analysis of goals and related treatments from (a) the Leg Activity measure study, (b) Ankle Contracture data set and (c) the Upper Limb International Spasticity-III study. Total 1207 participants. Goal categories were defined and identified based on a previously published framework: Pain, Involuntary Movement, Contracture Prevention, Active Function (self-performance of tasks), passive function (secondary performance of tasks or personal care). Treatment intervention was then identified per goal category.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong><i>Arm spasticity goal categorisation</i>: Pain 302 (22%), Involuntary Movement 166 (12%), Contracture Prevention 208 (15%), Active Function 174 (13%), passive function 501 (37%). <i>Primary interventions identified per category</i>: Pain (Positioning the limb, serial casting), Involuntary Movement (Position the limb, Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning the limb, serial casting, Shoulder support and slings, Splinting), Active Function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting), passive function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting). <i>Leg spasticity goal categorisation</i>: Pain 117 (15%), Involuntary Movement 10 (1%), Contracture Prevention 139 (17%), Active Function 356 (44%), passive function 181 (22%). <i>Primary interventions identified per category</i>: Pain (Passive stretch, positioning), Involuntary Movement (Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning, Orthotics, Task Practice), Active Function (Task Practice, Orthotics), passive function (Orthotics, Positioning).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Commonalities in goal categorisation were found in arm and leg. In these cohorts' task-practice interventions to improve active function (walking and transferring) were reported for leg but were not frequently reported for arm rehabilitation. It is suggested that improved treatment planning may result in greater and faster treatment goal attainment and better outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72107,"journal":{"name":"Advances in rehabilitation science and practice","volume":"14 ","pages":"27536351251343520"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Analysis of Goal Setting and Physical Treatment Categorisation for Focal Spasticity Following Stroke or Other Acquired Brain Injury.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Ashford, Jorge Jacinto, Klemens Fheodoroff, Lynne Turner-Stokes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27536351251343520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Setting goals and planning treatment to attain those goals is often integral to rehabilitation practice, particularly when managing spasticity following stroke or other brain injury. Optimal treatment planning and provision using an algorithm based on mapping goals and treatments, may improve outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed goal setting and treatment interventions through secondary analysis of goals and related treatments from (a) the Leg Activity measure study, (b) Ankle Contracture data set and (c) the Upper Limb International Spasticity-III study. Total 1207 participants. Goal categories were defined and identified based on a previously published framework: Pain, Involuntary Movement, Contracture Prevention, Active Function (self-performance of tasks), passive function (secondary performance of tasks or personal care). Treatment intervention was then identified per goal category.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong><i>Arm spasticity goal categorisation</i>: Pain 302 (22%), Involuntary Movement 166 (12%), Contracture Prevention 208 (15%), Active Function 174 (13%), passive function 501 (37%). <i>Primary interventions identified per category</i>: Pain (Positioning the limb, serial casting), Involuntary Movement (Position the limb, Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning the limb, serial casting, Shoulder support and slings, Splinting), Active Function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting), passive function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting). <i>Leg spasticity goal categorisation</i>: Pain 117 (15%), Involuntary Movement 10 (1%), Contracture Prevention 139 (17%), Active Function 356 (44%), passive function 181 (22%). <i>Primary interventions identified per category</i>: Pain (Passive stretch, positioning), Involuntary Movement (Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning, Orthotics, Task Practice), Active Function (Task Practice, Orthotics), passive function (Orthotics, Positioning).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Commonalities in goal categorisation were found in arm and leg. In these cohorts' task-practice interventions to improve active function (walking and transferring) were reported for leg but were not frequently reported for arm rehabilitation. It is suggested that improved treatment planning may result in greater and faster treatment goal attainment and better outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in rehabilitation science and practice\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"27536351251343520\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179447/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in rehabilitation science and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536351251343520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in rehabilitation science and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536351251343520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"0","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:设定目标和计划治疗以实现这些目标通常是康复实践中不可或缺的一部分,特别是在处理中风或其他脑损伤后的痉挛时。使用基于绘制目标和治疗方法的算法进行最佳治疗计划和提供,可以改善结果。方法:我们通过对(a)腿部活动测量研究、(b)踝关节挛缩数据集和(c)上肢国际痉挛- iii研究的目标和相关治疗进行二次分析,分析目标设定和治疗干预措施。共1207名参与者。目标类别是根据先前发布的框架定义和确定的:疼痛,不自主运动,挛缩预防,主动功能(任务的自我表现),被动功能(任务或个人护理的次要表现)。然后根据目标类别确定治疗干预措施。结果:手臂痉挛目标分类:疼痛302例(22%),不自主运动166例(12%),挛缩预防208例(15%),主动功能174例(13%),被动功能501例(37%)。按类别确定的主要干预措施:疼痛(肢体定位,连续铸造),不自主运动(肢体定位,连续铸造),挛缩预防(肢体定位,连续铸造,肩部支撑和吊带,夹板),主动功能(肢体定位,连续铸造,肩部支撑和夹板),被动功能(肢体定位,连续铸造,肩部支撑和夹板)。腿部痉挛目标分类:疼痛117例(15%),不自主运动10例(1%),挛缩预防139例(17%),主动功能356例(44%),被动功能181例(22%)。每个类别确定的主要干预措施:疼痛(被动拉伸,定位),不自主运动(夹板),挛缩预防(定位,矫形,任务练习),主动功能(任务练习,矫形),被动功能(矫形,定位)。结论:手臂和腿部在目标分类上存在共性。在这些队列中,改善活动功能(行走和移动)的任务练习干预在腿部有报道,但在手臂康复方面很少有报道。建议改进治疗计划可使治疗目标更快更快地实现,并获得更好的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Meta-Analysis of Goal Setting and Physical Treatment Categorisation for Focal Spasticity Following Stroke or Other Acquired Brain Injury.

Meta-Analysis of Goal Setting and Physical Treatment Categorisation for Focal Spasticity Following Stroke or Other Acquired Brain Injury.

Meta-Analysis of Goal Setting and Physical Treatment Categorisation for Focal Spasticity Following Stroke or Other Acquired Brain Injury.

Meta-Analysis of Goal Setting and Physical Treatment Categorisation for Focal Spasticity Following Stroke or Other Acquired Brain Injury.

Background: Setting goals and planning treatment to attain those goals is often integral to rehabilitation practice, particularly when managing spasticity following stroke or other brain injury. Optimal treatment planning and provision using an algorithm based on mapping goals and treatments, may improve outcome.

Methods: We analysed goal setting and treatment interventions through secondary analysis of goals and related treatments from (a) the Leg Activity measure study, (b) Ankle Contracture data set and (c) the Upper Limb International Spasticity-III study. Total 1207 participants. Goal categories were defined and identified based on a previously published framework: Pain, Involuntary Movement, Contracture Prevention, Active Function (self-performance of tasks), passive function (secondary performance of tasks or personal care). Treatment intervention was then identified per goal category.

Results: Arm spasticity goal categorisation: Pain 302 (22%), Involuntary Movement 166 (12%), Contracture Prevention 208 (15%), Active Function 174 (13%), passive function 501 (37%). Primary interventions identified per category: Pain (Positioning the limb, serial casting), Involuntary Movement (Position the limb, Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning the limb, serial casting, Shoulder support and slings, Splinting), Active Function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting), passive function (Positioning the limb, serial casting, shoulder supports and splinting). Leg spasticity goal categorisation: Pain 117 (15%), Involuntary Movement 10 (1%), Contracture Prevention 139 (17%), Active Function 356 (44%), passive function 181 (22%). Primary interventions identified per category: Pain (Passive stretch, positioning), Involuntary Movement (Splinting), Contracture Prevention (Positioning, Orthotics, Task Practice), Active Function (Task Practice, Orthotics), passive function (Orthotics, Positioning).

Conclusions: Commonalities in goal categorisation were found in arm and leg. In these cohorts' task-practice interventions to improve active function (walking and transferring) were reported for leg but were not frequently reported for arm rehabilitation. It is suggested that improved treatment planning may result in greater and faster treatment goal attainment and better outcomes.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信