Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey

Background A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point. Methods A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (>= 70%) and trends (>= 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey. Results Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner's abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34). Conclusion The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.published_or_final_versio

Behavioural activation therapy for depression after stroke (BEADS): a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled pilot trial of a psychological intervention for post-stroke depression

Background There is currently insufficient evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies for treating post-stroke depression. Methods/Design BEADS is a parallel group feasibility multicentre randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research and economic evaluation. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a full trial comparing behavioural activation (BA) to usual stroke care for 4 months for patients with post-stroke depression. We aim to recruit 72 patients with post-stroke depression over 12 months at three centres, with patients identified from the National Health Service (NHS) community and acute services and from the voluntary sector. They will be randomly allocated to receive behavioural activation in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at 6 months after randomisation for both participants and their carers, to determine their effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome measure for the full trial will be the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Rates of consent, recruitment and follow-up by centre and randomised group will be reported. The acceptability of the intervention to patients, their carers and therapists will also be assessed using qualitative interviews. The economic evaluation will be undertaken from the National Health Service and personal social service perspective, with a supplementary analysis from the societal perspective. A value of information analysis will be completed to identify the areas in which future research will be most valuable. Discussion The feasibility outcomes from this trial will provide the data needed to inform the design of a definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for treating post-stroke depression

Checklijst voor het opsporen van cognitieve en emotionele gevolgen van een beroerte (CLCE-24)

Background and purpose. Cognitive and emotional problems are common after stroke and screening is essential. In this paper a new screening instrument is presented and its usability is investigated.methods. A group of stroke patients (n = 69) were interviewed using the new instrument, the clce-24, six months post stroke. Moreover extensive neuropsychological testing was conducted (including mmse/camcog).results. Patients, relatives and assessors (a psychologist) were positive about its use. The interview with the clce-24 took 11.1 minutes on average (5-35 minutes). Eighty percent of the patients had complaints; 73% had cognitive problems, while 51% had emotional problems. Patients with at least one complaint on the clce-24 scored lower on the mmse (t=2.5; p = 0.01) and the camcog (t= 2.5; p= 0.02) compared to patients without complaints.conclusions. The clce-24 can be applied by professionals in primary care for identification of cognitive and emotional complaints after stroke. Further research and implementation in clinical practice and the stroke service is recommended

CheckLijst voor het opsporen van cognitieve en emotionele gevolgen na een beroerte (CLCE-24)

Achtergrond en doel: Eerstelijns zorgverleners geven aan dat ondersteuning nodig is voor het onderkennen en signaleren van cognitieve en emotionele stoornissen na een beroerte. Deze studie beschrijft een nieuw signaleringsinstrument, de CheckLijst voor Cognitieve en Emotionele problemen na een beroerte (CLCE-24). Methode: Bij een groep patie¨nten (N = 69) werd 6 maanden na de beroerte voorafgaand aan het uitgebreid neuropsychologisch onderzoek (waaronder de MMSE en CAMCOG) de CLCE-24 afgenomen. Resultaten: De CLCE-24 werd positief ontvangen door zowel de patie¨nt, de naaste als de interviewer (psycholoog). De gemiddelde afnameduur was 11.1 minuten (5-35 minuten). Tachtig procent van de patie¨nten rapporteerde klachten; 73% cognitieve klachten en 51% emotionele klachten. Patie¨nten met ten minste e´e´n cognitieve klacht scoorden lager op de MMSE (t = 2.52; p=0.01) en de CAMCOG (t = 2.45; p= 0.02) dan patie¨nten zonder klachten. Conclusie: De CLCE-24 is een bruikbaar instrument om cognitieve en emotionele klachten na een beroerte op te sporen, waarna verwijzing naar bijvoorbeeld een neuropsycholoog en/of revalidatiearts kan plaatsvinden. Verder onderzoek moet o.a. gericht zijn op betrouwbaarheid tussen beoordelaars en op implementatie in de zorgkete