Rebecca Lewthwaite

Use of the paretic arm and hand is a key indicator of recovery and reintegration after stroke. A sound methodology is essential to comprehensively identify the possible factors impacting daily arm/hand use behavior. We combined ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a prompt methodology capturing real-time psycho-contextual factors, with accelerometry to investigate arm/hand behavior in the natural environment. Our aims were to determine (1) feasibility and (2) measurement validity of the combined methodology. We monitored 30 right-dominant, mild-moderately motor impaired chronic stroke survivors over 5 days (6 EMA prompts/day with accelerometers on each wrist). We observed high adherence for accelerometer wearing time (80.3%), EMA prompt response (84.6%), and generally positive user feedback upon exit interview. The customized prompt schedule and the self-triggered prompt option may have improved adherence. There was no evidence of EMA response bias nor immediate measurement reactivity. An unexpected small but significant increase in paretic arm/hand use was observed over days (12–14 min), which may be the accumulated effect of prompting that provided a reminder to choose the paretic limb. Further research that uses this combined methodology is needed to develop targeted interventions that effectively change behavior and enable reintegration post-stroke.

Background . Task-oriented therapies have been developed to address significant upper extremity disability that persists after stroke. Yet, the extent of and approach to rehabilitation and recovery remains unsatisfactory to many. Objective . To compare a skill-directed investigational intervention with usual care treatment for body functions and structures, activities, participation, and quality of life outcomes. Methods . On average, 46 days poststroke, 361 patients were randomized to 1 of 3 outpatient therapy groups: a patient-centered Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program (ASAP), dose-equivalent usual occupational therapy (DEUCC), or usual therapy (UCC). Outcomes were taken at baseline, posttreatment, 6 months, and 1 year after randomization. Longitudinal mixed effect models compared group differences in poststroke improvement during treatment and follow-up phases. Results . Across all groups, most improvement occurred during the treatment phase, followed by change more slowly during follow-up. Compared with DEUCC and UCC, ASAP group gains were greater during treatment for Stroke Impact Scale Hand, Strength, Mobility, Physical Function, and Participation scores, self-efficacy, perceived health, reintegration, patient-centeredness, and quality of life outcomes. ASAP participants reported higher Motor Activity Log–28 Quality of Movement than UCC posttreatment and perceived greater study-related improvements in quality of life. By end of study, all groups reached similar levels with only limited group differences. Conclusions . Customized task-oriented training can be implemented to accelerate gains across a full spectrum of patient-reported outcomes. While group differences for most outcomes disappeared at 1 year, ASAP participants achieved these outcomes on average 8 months earlier (ClinicalTrials.gov: Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation [ICARE] Stroke Initiative, at www.ClinicalTrials.gov/ClinicalTrials.gov . Identifier: NCT00871715).

Residual disability after stroke is substantial; 65% of patients at 6 months are unable to incorporate the impaired upper extremity into daily activities. Task-oriented training programs are rapidly being adopted into clinical practice. In the absence of any consensus on the essential elements or dose of task-specific training, an urgent need exists for a well-designed trial to determine the effectiveness of a specific multidimensional task-based program governed by a comprehensive set of evidence-based principles. The Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE) Stroke Initiative is a parallel group, three-arm, single blind, superiority randomized controlled trial of a theoretically-defensible, upper extremity rehabilitation program provided in the outpatient setting.

This study examined motivational effects of feedback on motor learning. Specifically, we investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a balance task (stabilometer). In addition to veridical feedback (error scores reflecting deviation from the target horizontal platform position) about their own performance after each trial, two groups received false normative information about the “average” score of others on that trial. Average performance scores indicated that the participant's performance was either above (better group) or below (worse group) the average, respectively. A control group received veridical feedback about trial performance without normative feedback. Learning as a function of social-comparative feedback was determined in a retention test without feedback, performed on a third day following two days of practice. Normative feedback affected the learning of the balance task: The better group demonstrated more effective balance performance than both the worse and control groups on the retention test. Furthermore, high-frequency/low-amplitude balance adjustments, indicative of more automatic control of movement, were greater in the better than in the worse group. The control group exhibited more limited learning and less automaticity than both the better and the worse groups. The findings indicate that positive normative feedback had a facilitatory effect on motor learning.