Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

Lower Limb Strength Is Significantly Impaired in All Muscle Groups in Ambulatory People With Chronic Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the strength of the major muscle groups of the affected and intact lower limbs in people with stroke compared with age-matched controls. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory stroke survivors (n=60; mean age, 69±11y), who had had a stroke between 1 and 6 years previously, and age-matched controls (n=35; mean age, 65±9y) (N=95). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The maximum isometric strength of 12 muscle groups (hip flexors and extensors, hip adductors and abductors, hip internal rotators and external rotators, knee flexors and extensors, ankle dorsiflexors and plantarflexors, ankle invertors and evertors) of both lower limbs was measured using handheld dynamometry. All strength measurements were taken in standardized positions by 1 rater. RESULTS: The affected lower limb of the participants with stroke was significantly weaker than that of the control participants for all muscle groups (P<.01). Strength (adjusted for age, sex, and body weight) was 48% (range, 34%-62%) of that of the control participants. The most severely affected muscle groups were hip extensors (34% of controls), ankle dorsiflexors (35%), and hip adductors (38%), and the least severely affected muscle groups were ankle invertors (62%), ankle plantarflexors (57%), and hip flexors (55%). The intact lower limb of the participants with stroke was significantly weaker than that of the control participants for all muscle groups (P<.05) except for ankle invertors (P=.25). Strength (adjusted for age, sex, and body weight) was 66% (range, 44%-91%) of that of the control participants. The most severely affected muscle groups were hip extensors (44% of controls), ankle dorsiflexors (52%), and knee flexors (54%). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory people with chronic stroke have a marked loss of strength in most of the major muscle groups of both lower limbs compared with age-matched controls.

EMG-triggered electrical stimulation is a feasible intervention to apply to multiple arm muscles in people early after stroke, but does not improve strength and activity more than usual therapy: a randomized feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether EMG-triggered electrical stimulation applied to multiple muscles daily is a feasible intervention and to determine its effect on strength and activity in very weak stroke patients. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial with blinded assessment. SETTING: Metropolitan mixed acute and rehabilitation units. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three people within four weeks of a stroke with less than Grade 3 strength in three out of four muscle groups (shoulder flexors, elbow extensors, wrist and finger extensors and thumb abductors) of the affected arm. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to receive EMG-triggered electrical stimulation to the four muscle groups of the affected arm plus usual therapy five times a week for four weeks, or usual therapy only. MAIN MEASURES: Feasibility of the intervention was measured by examining compliance with the trial protocol. Strength was measured using manual muscle testing summed across muscle groups (0-20). Activity was measured using the Motor Assessment Scale, summed upper limb items (0-18). RESULTS: The experimental group received 87% of the intervention. Following the intervention period, there was no difference between the groups for strength (mean between-group difference, 0 out of 20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to 3, p = 0.91) or activity (mean between-group difference 1 out of 18, 95% CI -2 to 4, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to apply EMG-triggered electrical stimulation to multiple muscles of the upper limb in very weak people early after stroke. However, it does not appear to improve strength or activity beyond usual arm therapy that contains strengthening.

Bobath therapy is inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions in improving arm activity and arm strength outcomes after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTION: What is the effect of Bobath therapy on arm activity and arm strength compared with a dose-matched comparison intervention or no intervention after stroke? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with no intervention or other interventions delivered at the same dose as the Bobath therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Arm activity outcomes and arm strength outcomes. Trial quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included; all compared Bobath with another intervention, which were categorised as: task-specific training (five trials), arm movements (five trials), robotics (two trials) and mental practice (one trial). The PEDro scale scores ranged from 5 to 8. Pooled data from five trials indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than task-specific training for improving arm activities (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.55). Pooled data from five trials indicated that Bobath therapy was similar to or less effective than arm movements for improving arm activities (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.09). One trial indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than robotics for improving arm activities and one trial indicated similar effects of Bobath therapy and mental practice on arm activities. For strength outcomes, pooled data from two trials indicated a large benefit of task-specific training over Bobath therapy (SMD -1.08); however, this estimate had substantial uncertainty (95% CI -3.17 to 1.01). The pooled data of three trials indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than task-specific training for improving Fugl-Meyer scores (MD -7.84, 95% CI -12.99 to -2.69). The effects of Bobath therapy relative to other interventions on strength outcomes remained uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: After stroke, Bobath therapy is less effective than task-specific training and robotics in improving arm activity and less effective than task-specific training on the Fugl-Meyer score. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021251630.

The strength of the ankle dorsiflexors has a significant contribution to walking speed in people who can walk independently after stroke: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the strength of muscles of the affected lower limb and walking speed after stroke. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke survivors (N=60; mean age ± SD, 69±11y) 1 to 6 years poststroke, able to walk 10m independently without aids. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum isometric strength of 12 muscle groups (hip flexors/extensors, adductors/abductors, internal/external rotators, knee flexors/extensors, ankle dorsiflexors/plantarflexors, invertors/evertors) of the affected lower limb was measured using hand-held dynamometry. Comfortable walking speed was measured using the ten-meter walk test. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that strength of the hip flexors (r=.35, P=.01), hip extensors (r=.29, P=.03), hip internal rotators (r=.30, P=.02), hip adductors (r=.29, P=.03), knee extensors (r=.27, P=.03), knee flexors (r=.30, P=.02), ankle dorsiflexors (r=.50, P=.00), ankle plantarflexors (r=.29, P=.03), and ankle evertors (r=.33, P=.01) were all positively associated with walking speed. Multivariate analysis (n=58) revealed that the combined strength of the ankle dorsiflexors and the hip flexors accounted for 34% of the variance in walking speed (P<.001). The ankle dorsiflexors accounted for 31% of the variance (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The strength of muscle groups other than the lower limb extensors, particularly the ankle dorsiflexors, has an important role in determining walking speed after stroke.

An audit of physiotherapists' documentation on physical activity assessment, promotion and prescription to older adults attending out-patient rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: Identify if physiotherapists document the assessment, promotion and prescription of physical activity to older adults attending out-patient rehabilitation and assist them in the transition to an active lifestyle. METHODS: An audit of physiotherapists' documentation in medical records of older adults who attended an out-patient rehabilitation program at a tertiary hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-six medical records were reviewed. Mean age (SD) of participants was 79 (7) years. No documentation was found on the use of validated tools to assess physical activity levels of older adults. Prescription of physical activity was documented in 55/56 (98%) medical records. Seven (12.5%) medical records included documentation on goal setting regarding physical activity participation. Advice on regular physical activity post-discharge from the rehabilitation program was documented in 28/56 (50%) medical records. Formal referral to community-based physical activity programs was documented in 4/56 (7%) medical records. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-practice gaps were found in physiotherapists' documentation of the promotion of physical activity to older adults attending out-patient rehabilitation, indicating a lack of assistance in the transition to an active lifestyle. These gaps were evident in the lack of; physical activity assessment, implementation of behaviour change strategies and formal referral to physical activity in the community post-discharge from out-patient rehabilitation.Implications for rehabilitationOur findings suggest that physiotherapists are not widely applying evidence-based practice to promote physical activity to older adults attending out-patient rehabilitation nor supporting them in the transition to engage in physical activity in the community post-discharge from rehabilitation program.Incorporating physical activity assessment and behaviour change strategies into usual care may enable physiotherapists to successfully promote physical activity to older adults attending out-patient rehabilitation.Collaboration between the health care system and community-based physical activity programs is imperative to facilitate the sustainability of an active lifestyle after discharge from rehabilitation program.

Telehealth for rehabilitation and recovery after stroke: State of the evidence and future directions.

AIMS: The aim of this rapid review and opinion paper is to present the state of the current evidence and present future directions for telehealth research and clinical service delivery for stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of published trials in the field. We searched Medline using key terms related to stroke rehabilitation and telehealth or virtual care. We also searched clinical trial registers to identify key ongoing trials. RESULTS: The evidence for telehealth to deliver stroke rehabilitation interventions is not strong and is predominantly based on small trials prone to Type 2 error. To move the field forward, we need to progress to trials of implementation that include measures of adoption and reach, as well as effectiveness. We also need to understand which outcome measures can be reliably measured remotely, and/or develop new ones. We present tools to assist with the deployment of telehealth for rehabilitation after stroke. CONCLUSION: The current, and likely long-term, pandemic means that we cannot wait for stronger evidence before implementing telehealth. As a research and clinical community, we owe it to people living with stroke internationally to investigate the best possible telehealth solutions for providing the highest quality rehabilitation.

The Relationship Between Strength of the Affected Leg and Walking Speed After Stroke Varies According to the Level of Walking Disability: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this review were to determine the relationship between muscle strength of the affected leg and walking speed after stroke and whether this relationship varied according to muscle group or level of walking disability. METHODS: This systematic review with meta-analysis focused on observational studies of adult survivors of stroke. Muscle strength had to be measured as maximum voluntary force production during an isometric contraction of the affected leg. Walking had to be measured as walking speed. Studies had to report correlations between muscle strength and walking speed. RESULTS: Thirty studies involving 1001 participants were included. Pooled mean correlations between muscle strength of the affected leg and walking speed was 0.51 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.57). Pooled correlations between the strength of individual muscle groups and walking speed ranged from 0.42 (for the hip abductors) to 0.57 (for the ankle dorsiflexors). The correlation between level of walking disability and the mean correlation between muscle strength and walking speed was -0.70 (95% CI = -0.42 to -0.86). CONCLUSION: After stroke, there is a strong relationship between strength of the affected leg and walking speed, with little variability across individual muscle groups. However, the level of walking disability of people with stroke does make a difference such that the more disabled people are, the stronger the relationship is between strength of the affected leg and walking speed. IMPACT: This study suggests that the strength of all muscles of the affected leg is important for walking after stroke. It appears that increasing strength in the affected leg could be most important in people who are more disabled. LAY SUMMARY: After stroke, the speed at which a person can walk is highly associated with the muscle strength of their affected leg. In people whose walking speed is severely affected, this association is stronger, and the physical therapist might focus on strengthening that leg so the individual can walk faster.

Bobath therapy is inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions in improving lower limb activities after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTION: In adults with stroke, does Bobath therapy improve lower limb activity performance, strength or co-ordination when compared with no intervention or another intervention? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with another intervention or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb activity performance (eg, sit to stand, walking, balance), lower limb strength and lower limb co-ordination. Trial quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review and 17 in the meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the trials varied, with PEDro scale scores ranging from 2 to 8 out of 10. No trials compared Bobath therapy to no intervention. Meta-analyses estimated the effect of Bobath therapy on lower limb activities compared with other interventions, including: task-specific training (nine trials), combined interventions (four trials), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (one trial) and strength training (two trials). The pooled data indicated that task-specific training has a moderately greater benefit on lower limb activities than Bobath therapy (SMD 0.48), although the true magnitude of the benefit may be substantially larger or smaller than this estimate (95% CI 0.01 to 0.95). Bobath therapy did not clearly improve lower limb activities more than a combined intervention (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.61) or strength training (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.08). In one study, Bobath therapy was more effective than proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for improving standing balance (SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.88), but these interventions did not differ on any other outcomes. Bobath therapy did not improve strength or co-ordination more than other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Bobath therapy was inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions, with the exception of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Prioritising Bobath therapy over other interventions is not supported by current evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019112451.

Goal-oriented instructions increase the intensity of practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with non-specific instructions: a within-participant, repeated measures experimental study.

QUESTIONS: In stroke rehabilitation, do goal-oriented instructions increase the intensity of practice during therapy compared to a non-specific instruction? Is one type of goal-oriented instruction more effective at increasing the intensity of practice achieved by stroke survivors during therapy? DESIGN: A within-participant, repeated measures experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults undertaking stroke rehabilitation at a metropolitan hospital as an inpatient or outpatient. INTERVENTION: Participants were observed performing exercises across 3 days. On each day, they performed an exercise with a non-specific instruction ('do some [exercise]') as a baseline measure and the same exercise with one of three goal-oriented instructions, delivered in a randomised order. The three goal-oriented instructions were: 'do [exercise] 25 times' (instruction A), 'do [exercise] 25 times as fast as you can' (instruction B), and 'do [exercise] 25 times, as fast as you can, aiming for a personal best' (instruction C). The last instruction included verbal encouragement during the exercise. OUTCOME MEASURES: The time taken to complete 25 repetitions under the baseline condition and each instruction was recorded and converted into repetitions per minute. RESULTS: All of the goal-oriented instructions resulted in a significant increase in the rate of repetitions of the exercise being performed compared to the baseline measure: percentage increase from baseline (95% CI) was 62% (31 to 93) with instruction A, 116% (67 to 165) with instruction B, and 128% (84 to 171) with instruction C. Instruction C had a significantly greater effect than instruction A: mean difference in percentage increase 65% (95% CI 13 to 118). CONCLUSION: Goal-oriented instructions can result in significant increases in the rate of repetitions of exercise in stroke rehabilitation. The use of goal-oriented instructions is a simple, no-cost strategy that can be used to increase the intensity of practice in stroke rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619000146190.

In inpatient rehabilitation, large amounts of practice can occur safely without direct therapist supervision: an observational study.

QUESTIONS: When a hospital gymnasium used for inpatient rehabilitation is set up to allow semi-supervised practice: what percentage of practice is performed as semi-supervised practice, what percentage of patients in the gym are actively engaged in practice at one time, and is the semi-supervised practice that occurs safe? DESIGN: An observational study using periodic behaviour mapping. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in general and stroke rehabilitation units of a metropolitan hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Observations in the rehabilitation gym quantified the number of patients in the gym and the numbers of patients practising and resting. In observations of patients practising, the condition of practice was recorded as being with a therapist, with a family member, or with no direct supervision. The number of adverse events during the data collection period was collected from the hospital Incident Information Management System. RESULTS: The rehabilitation gym was observed on 113 occasions, resulting in 1319 individual patient observations. An average of 12 patients were in the gym during the observations. Practice was being performed with family supervision in 15% of observations and with no direct supervision in 26% of observations, resulting in semi-supervised practice accounting for 41% of all observations of practice. The percentage of observations that were of patients taking part in active practice was 78%. There were no adverse events in the gym. CONCLUSION: In an inpatient setting, a large percentage of practice can be performed as semi-supervised practice. This does not appear to compromise the time spent in active practice or patient safety.

Two weeks of intensive sit-to-stand training in addition to usual care improves sit-to-stand ability in people who are unable to stand up independently after stroke: a randomised trial.

QUESTION: Does intensive sit-to-stand training in addition to usual care improve sit-to-stand ability in people who are unable to stand up independently after stroke? DESIGN: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty patients from two Sydney hospitals, < 3 months after stroke, with a mean Modified Rankin Scale score of 4 points (SD 0.5). INTERVENTION: All participants received usual care. Participants in the experimental group attended two additional sessions of physiotherapy per day for 2 weeks. These sessions were individualised to the needs of each participant in order to increase the amount and intensity of sit-to-stand training. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were taken at baseline and at 2 weeks. The primary outcome was clinicians' impressions of sit-to-stand change, measured using videos and a 15-point Global Impressions of Change Scale. Secondary outcomes were sit-to-stand ability, composite strength of key muscles of the affected lower limb, gross lower limb extension strength, the Goal Attainment Scale, and ranking of change in ability to move from sitting to standing. RESULTS: All participants completed the trial. The mean between-group difference for clinicians' impressions of sit-to-stand change was 1.57/15 points (95% CI 0.02 to 3.11). The secondary outcomes that indicated a treatment effect were gross lower limb extension strength and ranking of change in ability to move from sitting to standing, with mean between-group differences of 6.2 deg (95% CI 0.5 to 11.8) and -7 (95% CI -1 to -13), respectively. CONCLUSION: Two weeks of intensive sit-to-stand training in addition to usual care improves sit-to-stand ability in people who are unable to stand up independently after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR 12616001288415.

Progressive resistance training increases strength after stroke but this may not carry over to activity: a systematic review.

QUESTION: Does progressive resistance training improve strength and activity after stroke? Does any increase in strength carry over to activity? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who have had a stroke. INTERVENTION: Progressive resistance training compared with no intervention or placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in strength. This measurement had to be of maximum voluntary force production and performed in muscles congruent with the muscles trained in the intervention. The secondary outcome was change in activity. This measurement had to be a direct measure of performance that produced continuous or ordinal data, or with scales that produced ordinal data. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 370 participants were included in this systematic review. The overall effect of progressive resistance training on strength was examined by pooling change scores from six studies with a mean PEDro score of 5.8, representing medium quality. The effect size of progressive resistance training on strength was 0.98 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.29, I2=0%). The overall effect of progressive resistance training on activity was examined by pooling change scores from the same six studies. The effect size of progressive resistance training on activity was 0.42 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.91, I2=54%). CONCLUSION: After stroke, progressive resistance training has a large effect on strength compared with no intervention or placebo. There is uncertainty about whether these large increases in strength carry over to improvements in activity. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025401. [Dorsch S, Ada L, Alloggia D (2018) Progressive resistance training increases strength after stroke but this may not carry over to activity: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 84-90].

Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTIONS: Do interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke? Are any improvements in strength accompanied by improvements in activity? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who have had a stroke. INTERVENTION: Any intervention involving repetitive practice compared with no intervention or a sham intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was voluntary strength in muscles trained as part of the intervention. The secondary outcomes were measures of lower limb and upper limb activity. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies were included. The overall SMD of repetitive practice on strength was examined by pooling post-intervention scores from 46 studies involving 1928 participants. The SMD of repetitive practice on strength when the upper and lower limb studies were combined was 0.25 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.34, I2=44%) in favour of repetitive practice. Twenty-four studies with a total of 912 participants investigated the effects of repetitive practice on upper limb activity after stroke. The SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.29, I2=50%) in favour of repetitive practice on upper limb activity. Twenty studies with a total of 952 participants investigated the effects of repetitive practice on lower limb activity after stroke. The SMD was 0.25 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.38, I2=36%) in favour of repetitive practice on lower limb activity. CONCLUSION: Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke, and these improvements are accompanied by improvements in activity. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068658. [de Sousa DG, Harvey LA, Dorsch S, Glinsky JV (2018) Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 210-221].

Feasibility of a Nurse-Led Weekend Group Exercise Program for People after Stroke.

Background. Additional physical activity including repetitive task practice can improve outcomes after stroke. The additional practice can be facilitated by therapists and family members or could also be delivered by nursing staff. Objective. To investigate the feasibility of a nurse-led weekend exercise program after stroke. Participants. Individuals after stroke, who participated in a weekend exercise program during their hospital admission. Methods. A retrospective audit of the number of referrals to and amount of exercise repetitions achieved in a nurse-led weekend exercise program was undertaken. The weekend exercise program occurs on each Saturday and Sunday for one hour. The repetitions of exercise completed during each class were documented by staff. An audit was conducted to ascertain the amount and type of exercise completed within the class. Results. During the study period 284 people were referred to the exercise program. The mean number of exercise repetitions completed per participant in each class was 180.7 (SD 205.4). The number of exercise repetitions completed by participants was highly variable ranging from 0 to 1190 per class. Conclusion. The amount of average exercise repetitions completed in the Weekend Warrior program was large but with significant variability. A nurse-led exercise class is a feasible method of delivering exercise opportunities to individuals in hospital after stroke.

Strengthening interventions increase strength and improve activity after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTION: Is strength training after stroke effective (ie, does it increase strength), is it harmful (ie, does it increase spasticity), and is it worthwhile (ie, does it improve activity)? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke participants were categorised as (i) acute, very weak, (ii) acute, weak, (iii) chronic, very weak, or (iv) chronic, weak. INTERVENTION: Strengthening interventions were defined as interventions that involved attempts at repetitive, effortful muscle contractions and included biofeedback, electrical stimulation, muscle re-education, progressive resistance exercise, and mental practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength was measured as continuous measures of force or torque or ordinal measures such as manual muscle tests. Spasticity was measured using the modified Ashworth Scale, a custom made scale, or the Pendulum Test. Activity was measured directly, eg, 10-m Walk Test, or the Box and Block Test, or with scales that measured dependence such as the Barthel Index. RESULTS: 21 trials were identified and 15 had data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Effect sizes were calculated as standardised mean differences since various muscles were studied and different outcome measures were used. Across all stroke participants, strengthening interventions had a small positive effect on both strength (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54) and activity (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.53). There was very little effect on spasticity (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.50). CONCLUSION: Strengthening interventions increase strength, improve activity, and do not increase spasticity. These findings suggest that strengthening programs should be part of rehabilitation after stroke.

Functional electrical stimulation cycling does not improve mobility in people with acquired brain injury and its effects on strength are unclear: a randomised trial.

QUESTION: Does 4 weeks of active functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling in addition to usual care improve mobility and strength more than usual care alone in people with a sub-acute acquired brain injury caused by stroke or trauma? DESIGN: Multi centre, randomised, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients from three Sydney hospitals with recently acquired brain injury and a mean composite strength score in the affected lower limb of 7 (SD 5) out of 20 points. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received an incremental, progressive, FES cycling program five times a week over a 4-week period. All participants received usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were taken at baseline and at 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were mobility and strength of the knee extensors of the affected lower limb. Mobility was measured with three mobility items of the Functional Independence Measure and strength was measured with a hand-held dynamometer. Secondary outcomes were strength of the knee extensors of the unaffected lower limb, strength of key muscles of the affected lower limb and spasticity of the affected plantar flexors. RESULTS: All but one participant completed the study. The mean between-group differences for mobility and strength of the knee extensors of the affected lower limb were -0.3/21 points (95% CI -3.2 to 2.7) and 7.5 Nm (95% CI -5.1 to 20.2), where positive values favoured the experimental group. The only secondary outcome that suggested a possible treatment effect was strength of key muscles of the affected lower limb with a mean between-group difference of 3.0/20 points (95% CI 1.3 to 4.8). CONCLUSION: Functional electrical stimulation cycling does not improve mobility in people with acquired brain injury and its effects on strength are unclear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612001163897. [de Sousa DG, Harvey LA, Dorsch S, Leung J, Harris W (2016) Functional electrical stimulation cycling does not improve mobility in people with acquired brain injury and its effects on strength are unclear: a randomised controlled trial.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 203-208].

Effect of affordable technology on physical activity levels and mobility outcomes in rehabilitation: a protocol for the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted while masked to group allocation and use an intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the relevant Human Research Ethics Committees and the results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000936628. Pre-results.