Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background and purposeIn order for people with Parkinson disease (PwPD) to benefit from neurorehabilitation research, interventions tested in research settings require assessment in real-world clinical practice. There is little evidence for whether efficacious exercise interventions for PwPD remain effective when transferred to standard clinical settings. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the adapted HiBalance program on balance control and gait among PwPD.MethodsParticipants (n = 117) with mild-moderate Parkinson disease were consecutively included into either the 10-week HiBalance group training (n = 61) or the control (n = 56) group. The main outcome was balance performance (Mini-BESTest). Secondary outcomes were comfortable gait speed (10-m Walk Test); functional mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG] test) and dual-task interference (cognitive TUG test); physical activity level (steps per day); perceived balance confidence (Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale) and perceived walking difficulty (Walk-12G) and self-rated health (EQ-5D visual analog scale).ResultsIn total, 98 people completed the trial. Compared with controls, the training group showed significant improvement in balance performance (P Discussion and conclusionsHighly challenging balance training is effective at improving balance, gait, and dual-task performance when delivered at a clinically feasible dose, in a range of rehabilitation settings, without direct involvement of the research group.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplementary Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A299).
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.