Standardized circuit class group training versus individualized goal-directed group training to improve upper limb function in stroke survivors during in-patient rehabilitation: a pragmatic trial

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the usability and effectiveness of standardized circuit class group training (CCT) compared to individualized goal-directed group training (GDT) in subacute stroke survivors. Materials and methods This study consists of three parts. Part 1 involved a pragmatic, non-randomized controlled trial with subacute participants and their therapists, who participated in four weeks either CCT or GDT. Superiority of the intervention was defined as significantly larger improvement on the Motor Activity Log for patients and lower workload for therapists. In Part 2, six additional workstations were developed for CCT. Part 3 replicated the study of Part 1 with the expanded CCT. Results Part 1 showed no difference in effectiveness between training methods. CCT did not match the rehabilitation goals of the patient sufficiently, however mental workload seemed lower for therapists. An expansion of CCT could improve the match between the patient’s goals and the training (Part 2). Results of Part 3 showed again no difference in effectiveness between methods. CCT was however perceived as less engaging compared to GDT, but mental load for therapists remained lower. Conclusions A standardized training could reduce the mental workload for therapists, but patients seemed less engaged. A combination of both might be most beneficial.Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register: NL8844 and NL9471 IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Providing a standardized training program after stroke reduces therapists’ mental workload. Individualized goal-directed group training results in the best achievement of rehabilitation goals. A combination of standardized and individual training would use best of both intervention modalities. Patients should be involved in the co-creation developing process of training programs.