scholarly journals Action Imagery and Observation in Neurorehabilitation for Parkinson’s Disease (ACTION-PD): development and pilot randomised controlled trial of a user-informed home training intervention to improve everyday functional actions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Bek ◽  
Paul S. Holmes ◽  
Jordan Webb ◽  
Chesney E. Craig ◽  
Zoё C. Franklin ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackgroundParkinson’s disease (PD) causes difficulties with everyday manual activities, but few studies have addressed these therapeutically. Training with action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) can significantly improve performance in healthy individuals, particularly when these techniques are applied simultaneously (AO+MI). Both AO and MI have shown promising effects in PD, but previous studies have used these separately. This article describes the development and pilot testing of an intervention combining AO+MI and physical practice to improve functional manual actions in PD.MethodsThe home-based intervention, delivered using a tablet computer app, was iteratively designed by an interdisciplinary team including people with PD, and further developed through focus groups and initial testing. The intervention was then tested in a six-week randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 11184024) of 10 participants with mild to moderate PD (6 intervention; 4 treatment as usual).Results and ConclusionsUsage and qualitative data provided preliminary evidence of acceptability and usability, indicating that a feasibility RCT is warranted. Exploratory analyses suggested potential improvements in manual actions. The importance of personalisation, choice, and motivation was highlighted, as well as the need to facilitate engagement in motor imagery. The findings also have broader relevance for AO+MI interventions in PD and other populations.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONParkinson’s disease affects everyday manual activities and there is a need to address these therapeutically.A home-based intervention based on combined action observation and motor imagery is acceptable and usable for people with Parkinson’s, and may improve everyday hand movements.Important considerations for interventions using observation and imagery include personalisation, choice, and motivation.Some people with Parkinson’s may need additional support to engage in motor imagery, and this should be addressed within future interventions.

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jooeun Song ◽  
Serene S Paul ◽  
Maria Joana D Caetano ◽  
Stuart Smith ◽  
Leland E Dibble ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Bek ◽  
Jordan Webb ◽  
Emma Gowen ◽  
Stefan Vogt ◽  
Trevor J. Crawford ◽  
...  

Background. Action observation and motor imagery activate neural structures involved in action execution, thereby facilitating movement and learning. Although some benefits of action observation and motor imagery have been reported in Parkinson’s disease (PD), methods have been based on stroke rehabilitation and may be less suitable for PD. Moreover, previous studies have focused on either observation or imagery, yet combining these enhances effects in healthy participants. The present study explores the feasibility of a PD-specific home-based intervention combining observation, imagery, and imitation of meaningful everyday actions.Methods. A focus group was conducted with six people with mild to moderate PD and two companions, exploring topics relating to the utility and feasibility of a home-based observation and imagery intervention.Results. Five themes were identified. Participants reported their experiences of exercise and use of action observation and motor imagery in everyday activities, and the need for strategies to improve movement was expressed. Motivational factors including feedback, challenge, and social support were identified as key issues. The importance of offering a broad range of actions and flexible training was also highlighted.Conclusions. A home-based intervention utilising action observation and motor imagery would be useful and feasible in mild to moderate PD.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 998-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolien M van der Kolk ◽  
Nienke M de Vries ◽  
Roy P C Kessels ◽  
Hilde Joosten ◽  
Aeilko H Zwinderman ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1164-1172 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J Marks ◽  
Raymond T Bartus ◽  
Joao Siffert ◽  
Charles S Davis ◽  
Andres Lozano ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Scobie ◽  
Sue Jowett ◽  
Tosin Lambe ◽  
Smitaa Patel ◽  
Rebecca Woolley ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson’s disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. Methods A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson’s disease were compared. Results Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. Conclusions The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document