Enhancing activities of daily living of chronic stroke patients in primary health care by modified constraint-induced movement therapy (HOMECIMT): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Anne Barzel, Gesche Ketels, Britta Tetzlaff, Heike Krüger, Kerstin Haevernick, Anne Daubmann, Karl Wegscheider, Martin Scherer, Anne Barzel, Gesche Ketels, Britta Tetzlaff, Heike Krüger, Kerstin Haevernick, Anne Daubmann, Karl Wegscheider, Martin Scherer

Abstract

Background: Stroke leads to constant rehabilitation needs even at the chronic stage. However, although many stroke patients receive physical or occupational therapy in primary health care, treatment prescriptions do not generally specify therapeutic goals; in particular, participation is not established as an explicit therapeutic goal in the ambulatory setting. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a therapy regimen for chronic stroke patients (modified 'constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) at home') with impaired hand or arm function with regard to the prerequisites of participation in everyday activities: a sufficient arm and hand function. 'CIMT at home' will be compared with conventional physical and occupational therapy ('therapy as usual').

Methods/design: The study is a parallel cluster randomized controlled trial with therapy practices as clusters (n = 48). After written consent from the patients (n = 144), the therapists will be randomly assigned to treat either the intervention or the control group. Blinded external assessors will evaluate the patients using standardized outcome measures before and after the intervention, and six months later. The two coprimary endpoint assessments of arm and hand function as prerequisites for participation (defined as equal involvement in activities of daily living) are the motor activity log (quality of arm and hand use) and the Wolf motor function test (arm and hand function). These assessments are made four weeks post-treatment and relativized to baseline performance. Changes in primary outcomes will be analyzed with mixed models, which consider the hierarchical structure of the data and will be adjusted to the baseline measurements and sex. The primary analysis will be the comparison of the two randomized groups, with respect to the adjusted averages for each of the two coprimary endpoints. To keep an overall significance level of 5%, the two endpoints will be tested at the significance level of 5% each in hierarchical order.

Discussion: A modification of the CIMT, feasible in the patients' homes (CIMT at home), appears to be a promising therapeutic approach in the ambulatory care of chronic stroke patients. With proven efficacy and practicality, a participation-oriented, stroke-specific treatment would be available in primary care.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01343602.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Design of the HOMECIMT trial. Flowchart showing enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis for the HOMECIMT trial participants with regard to the primary endpoint. ITT, intention-to-treat; LOCF, last-observation carried forward.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Therapy concept. This figure illustrates one of the key therapeutic principles of CIMT: restriction of the less affected hand induces the patient to use the affected arm to drink a glass of water as a typical activity of daily living.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Timeline of the HOMECIMT trial.

References

    1. Wie steht's um unsere Gesundheit? Kapitel 1 [Gesundheit in Deutschland, 2006] [ ]
    1. Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Heuschmann PU. Inzidenz, Ätiologie und Langzeitprognose des Schlaganfalls. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2002;70:657–662. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-35857.
    1. Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation. Arbeitshilfe für die Rehabilitation von Schlaganfallpatienten (Neufassung), vol 4. Frankfurt am Main; 1998. [ ]
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Geneva; 2001.
    1. Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Neuntes Buch (IX) Rehabilitation und Teilhabe behinderter Menschen, § 8 Vorrang von Leistungen zur Teilhabe. [ ]
    1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie. Leitlinien der DGN 2008. Rehabilitation von sensomotorischen Störungen. [ ]
    1. Platz T. Evidenzbasierte Armrehabilitation. Nervenarzt. 2003;74:841–849. doi: 10.1007/s00115-003-1549-7.
    1. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss über die Verordnung von Heilmitteln in der vertragsärztlichen Versorgung. Heilmittel-Richtlinie. In: Heilmittel der Physikalischen Therapie, editor. Heilmittelkatalog 2011. 1. Ludwigsburg: Intelli Med GmbH; 2011.
    1. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D. EXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095–2104. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095.
    1. Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1045–1049. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000206463.66461.97.
    1. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients : results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2369–2375. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.11.2369.
    1. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Thompson PA, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Blanton S, Nichols-Larsen D, Clark PC. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:33–40. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70294-6.
    1. Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4 CD004433.
    1. Corbetta D, Sirtori V, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46:537–544.
    1. Peurala SH, Kantanen MP, Sjogren T, Paltamaa J, Karhula M, Heinonen A. Effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy on activity and participation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:209–223. doi: 10.1177/0269215511420306.
    1. Liepert J, Hamzei F, Weiller C. Lesion-induced and training-induced brain reorganization. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22:269–277.
    1. Rijntjes M, Hobbeling V, Hamzei F, Dohse S, Ketels G, Liepert J, Weiller C. Individual factors in constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:238–249. doi: 10.1177/1545968305279205.
    1. Liepert J, Haevernick K, Weiller C, Barzel A. The surround inhibition determines therapy-induced cortical reorganization. Neuroimage. 2006;32:1216–1220. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.028.
    1. Barzel A, Liepert J, Haevernick K, Eisele M, Ketels G, Rijntjes M, van den Bussche H. Comparison of two types of constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients - a pilot study. Restor Neurol and Neurosci. 2009;27:673–680.
    1. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1693–1700. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.022.
    1. Lin K, Hsieh Y, Wu C, Chen C, Jang Y, Liu J. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf motor function test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:429–434. doi: 10.1177/1545968308331144.
    1. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5:24–33.
    1. Greiner W, Claes C. In: Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. Schöffski PDO, Schulenburg PDJ-MG, editor. Berlin: Springer; 2007. Der EQ-5D der EuroQol-Gruppe; pp. 403–414.
    1. Petersen C, Morfeld M, Bullinger M. Testing and validation of the German version of the Stroke Impact Scale. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2001;69:284–290.
    1. Barthel-Index, modifiziert nach dem Hamburger Manual zum Barthel-Index. [ ]
    1. Lawton MP, Brody EM. The instrumental activities of daily living scale. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186. doi: 10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179.
    1. Gräfe K, Zipfel S, Herzog W, Löwe B. Screening psychischer Störungen mit dem "Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D)". Ergebnisse der deutschen Validierungsstudie. Diagnostica. 2004;50:171–181. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924.50.4.171.
    1. Rigler SK, Studenski S, Wallace D, Reker DM, Duncan PW. Co-morbidity adjustment for functional outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:420–428. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr515oa.
    1. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Clinical section: grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50:133–149. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4.
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
    1. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328:702–708. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702.
    1. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, Cook EW, Fleming WC, Nepomuceno CS, Connell JS, Crago JE. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:347–354.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner