Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundManual dexterity (MD) impairment is a frequent and disabling feature in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and paranoid schizophrenia (PS), significantly affecting functional independence and activities of daily living. However, rehabilitation strategies specifically targeting fine motor control remain insufficiently integrated into routine physiotherapy (PT).ObjectiveThis study investigated the effects of a structured, progressive PT program incorporating targeted MD training on upper limb function in patients with PD and PS.MethodsA prospective, exploratory, interventional study was conducted in 30 patients, allocated to either an experimental group (EG, n = 20) or a control group (CG, n = 10). Participants had PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages II-III) or chronic, clinically stable PS. MD was assessed using the Purdue Pegboard Test, Coin Rotation Task, and Kapandji opposition score. The EG completed a four-phase, 40-week dexterity-oriented rehabilitation program, while the CG received standard disease-specific PT. Between-group differences in change scores were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.ResultsThe EG showed significantly greater improvements than the CG in thumb opposition, psychomotor processing speed, and unilateral and bilateral fine motor performance (p 2 = 0.45-0.76). No significant between-group differences were observed for complex sequential assembly tasks.ConclusionsIntegrating targeted MD training into structured PT programs significantly improves fine motor performance in patients with PD and PS, supporting its inclusion in rehabilitation protocols for residential and outpatient care settings.
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.