Problem: There is a great diversity of movement therapies in stroke rehabilitation, each of which is treated as a more or less independent system.
Objective: To articulate pitfalls in effectiveness research that has been employed to reduce the number of different forms of treatment.
Methods: The contents of treatment goals and outcome measures in clinical and scienti”c texts on stroke rehabilitation were analysed and contrasted in order to uncover discrepancies.
Issues: The main issue is that theory and conceptualization of therapy play a diminished role in treatment effectiveness research, which may hinder the interpretation of data. The notion that the methodological and statistical tools, if correctly applied, provide researchers with the distance that is thought to be necessary for an objective judgement will be challenged.
Conclusion: The analyses indicate that although scienti”cally credible measurement tools may be neutral with regard to the user, they are not necessarily neutral with regard to the therapies being compared in effectiveness research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Farrell JP, Jensen GM. Manual therapy: a critical assessment of role in the profession of physical therapy. Phys Ther1992; 72: 843–852.
2.
Ashburn A. A review of current physiotherapy in the management of stroke. In: Harrison MA ed. Physiotherapy in stroke management. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 3–22.
3.
Ottenbacher KJ. Why rehabilitation research does not work (as well as we think it should). Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 123–129.
4.
Johnston MV, Stineman M, Velozo CA. Outcomes research in medical rehabilitation; foundations from the past and directions for the future. In: Fuhrer MJ ed. Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: the promise of outcomes research. Baltimore, London: Paul H. Brookes, 1997: 1–42.
5.
Newham DJ. Physiotherapy for best effect. Physiotherapy1997; 83: 5–12.
Siemonsma PC, Walker MF. Practical guidelines for independent assessment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 273–279.
8.
Tate DG, Dijkers TJr, Nobunaga AL, Karunas RB. Randomized clinical trials in medical rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1999; 78: 486–499.
9.
Logigian MK, Samuels MA, Falconer J, Zager R. Clinical exercise trial for stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1983; 64: 364–367.
10.
Dickstein R, Hocherman S, Pillar T, Shaham R. Stroke rehabilitation, three exercise therapy approaches. Phys Ther1986; 66: 1233–1238.
11.
Wagenaar RC, Meijer OG, Wieringen PCW van et al. The functional recovery after stroke: a comparison between Neuro Developmental Treatment and the Brunnstrom-method. Scand J Rehabil Med1990; 22: 1–7.
12.
Basmajian JV, Gowland CA, Finlayson MAJ, Hall AL. Stroke treatment: comparison of integrated behavioral physical therapy vs. traditional physical therapy programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1987; 68: 267–272.
13.
Sunderland A, Tinson DJ, Bradley EL, Fletcher D, Langton Hewer R, Wade DT. Enhanced physical therapy improves recovery of arm function after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1992; 55: 530–535.
14.
Ernst E. A review of stroke rehabilitation and physiotherapy. Stroke1990; 21: 1081–1085.
15.
Wagenaar RC. Effects of stroke rehabilitation: a critical review of the literature. In: Wagenaar RC. Functional recovery after stroke. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1990: 17–89.
16.
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC. Therapy impact on functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy1999; 85: 377–391.
17.
Lettinga AT, Mol A, Helders PJM, Rispens P. Differentiation as a qualitative research strategy: a comparative analysis of Bobath and Brunnstrom approaches to treatment of stroke patients. Physiotherapy1997; 83: 538–546.
18.
Lettinga AT, Siemonsma PC, Veen M van. Entwinement of theory and practice in physiotherapy: a comparative analysis of two approaches to hemiplegia in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy1999; 85: 360–369.
19.
Lettinga AT, Mol A. Clinical speci” city and the nongeneralities of science: on innovation strategies in neurological physiotherapy. Theor Med Bioethics2000; 20: 517–535.
20.
Lettinga AT. Diversity in neurological physiotherapy: a content analysis of the Brunnstrom/Bobath controversy. Adv Physiother (in press).
21.
Bohannon RW. Is the measurement of muscle strength appropriate in patients with brain lesions? A special communication. Phys Ther1989; 69: 225–234.
Wade DT. Measurements in neurological rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
24.
Bobath B. Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment, third edition. London: William Heinemann Medical Books, 1990 (first edition; 1970, second edition 1978).
25.
Brunnstrom S. Movement therapy in hemiplegia: a neurophysiological approach. Hagerstown: Harper and Row, 1970.
26.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leymand I, Olssen S, Stegland S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. A method for the evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med1975; 7: 13–31.
27.
Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A motor relearning program for stroke, second edition. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1987 (first edition 1982).
28.
Gordon J. Assumptions underlying physical therapy intervention: theoretical and historical perspectives. In: Carr JH and Shepherd RB eds. Movement science, foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen publication, 1987: 1–31.
29.
Lennon S. The Bobath concept: a critical review of the theoretical assumptions that guide physiotherapy practice in stroke rehabilitation. Phys Ther Rev1996; 1: 35–45.
30.
Keith RA, Lipsey MW. The role of theory in rehabilitation assessment, treatment and outcomes. In: Glueckauf R ed. Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health. California: SAGE Publications, 1993: 33–58.
