SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0269215508101734v1
23/5/424    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hammer, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lindmark, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hammer, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lindmark, B.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Stroke
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Is forced use of the paretic upper limb beneficial? A randomized pilot study during subacute post-stroke recovery

Ann Hammer1* and Birgitta Lindmark2

1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Örebro University Hospital, and the School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
2 Department of Neuroscience, Section of Physiotherapy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ann.hammer{at}orebroll.se.


   Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of two weeks of forced use of the paretic upper limb, as a supplement to the rehabilitation programme in the subacute phase after stroke, on self-rated use of that limb.

Design: A randomized, non-blind, parallel group, clinical, before-and-after trial. A forced use group and a conventional group were followed up one and three months after intervention.

Setting: In- and outpatient units of rehabilitation at a University Hospital.

Subjects: Thirty patients were allocated to two groups, 15 in each, 1–6 months (mean 2.4) after stroke onset. Twenty-six patients completed the study.

Interventions: The patients of both groups participated in two weeks of daily training on weekdays. In addition, the forced use group wore a restraining sling on the non-paretic arm for up to 6 hours per weekday.

Main measure: The Motor Activity Log; patients scored 0–5 for 30 daily tasks concerning both amount of use and quality of movement.

Results: The forced use group tended to achieve larger improvements immediately post-intervention, but this was not clearly demonstrated. The small differences also levelled out up to the three-month follow-up, with both groups earning an approximately 1.0 score point on both scales of the Motor Activity Log.

Conclusions: This pilot study did not reveal any additional benefit of forced use on self-rated performance in daily use of the paretic upper limb. Both groups performed fairly extensive, active training with a similar duration, amount and content.

First published on March 25, 2009, doi:10.1177/0269215508101734

Clinical Rehabilitation 2009;23:424.

A more recent version of this article appeared on May 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ptjournalHome page
A. M. Hammer and B. Lindmark
Author Response
Physical Therapy, September 1, 2009; 89(9): 995 - 997.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Advertisement