Progressive Resistance Exercise and Parkinson's Disease: A Review of Potential Mechanisms

This paper reviews the therapeutically beneficial effects of progressive resistance exercise (PRE) on Parkinson's disease (PD). First, this paper discusses the rationale for PRE in PD. Within the first section, the review discusses the central mechanisms that underlie bradykinesia and muscle weakness, highlights findings related to the central changes that accompany PRE in healthy individuals, and extends these findings to individuals with PD. It then illustrates the hypothesized positive effects of PRE on nigro-striatal-thalamo-cortical activation and connectivity. Second, it reviews recent findings of the use of PRE in individuals with PD. Finally, knowledge gaps of using PRE on individuals with PD are discussed along with suggestions for future research

Essential Content for Teaching Implementation Practice in Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teams Offering Capacity-Building Initiatives

Background Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals’ and teams’ ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives’ content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. Results Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. Conclusions This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice

A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology.

BackgroundNeurorehabilitation engineering faces numerous challenges to translating new technologies, but it is unclear which of these challenges are most limiting. Our aim is to improve understanding of rehabilitation therapists' real-time decision-making processes on the use of rehabilitation technology (RT) in clinical treatment.MethodsWe used a phenomenological qualitative approach, in which three OTs and two PTs employed at a major, technology-encouraging rehabilitation hospital wrote vignettes from a written prompt describing their RT use decisions during treatment sessions with nine patients (4 with stroke, 2 traumatic brain injury, 1 spinal cord injury, 1 with multiple sclerosis). We then coded the vignettes using deductive qualitative analysis from 17 constructs derived from the RT literature and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were synthesized using summative content analysis.ResultsOf the constructs recorded, the five most prominent are from CFIR determinants of: (i) relative advantage, (ii) personal attributes of the patients, (iii) clinician knowledge and beliefs of the device/intervention, (iv) complexity of the devices including time and setup, and (v) organizational readiness to implement. Therapists characterized candidate RT as having a relative disadvantage compared to conventional treatment due to lack of relevance to functional training. RT design also often failed to consider the multi-faceted personal attributes of the patients, including diagnoses, goals, and physical and cognitive limitations. Clinicians' comfort with RT was increased by their previous training but was decreased by the perceived complexity of RT. Finally, therapists have limited time to gather, setup, and use RT.ConclusionsDespite decades of design work aimed at creating clinically useful RT, many lack compatibility with clinical translation needs in inpatient neurologic rehabilitation. New RT continue to impede the immediacy, versatility, and functionality of hands-on therapy mediated treatment with simple everyday objects

Utilization of rehabilitation therapy services in Parkinson disease in the United States

OBJECTIVE: To examine rehabilitation therapy utilization for Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: We identified 174,643 Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of PD in 2007 and followed them through 2009. The main outcome measures were annual receipt of physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), or speech therapy (ST). RESULTS: Outpatient rehabilitation fee-for-service use was low. In 2007, only 14.2% of individuals with PD had claims for PT or OT, and 14.6% for ST. Asian Americans were the highest users of PT/OT (18.4%) and ST (18.4%), followed by Caucasians (PT/OT 14.4%, ST 14.8%). African Americans had the lowest utilization (PT/OT 7.8%, ST 8.2%). Using logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures, we found that African American patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.63 for PT/OT, AOR 0.63 for ST) and Hispanic patients (AOR 0.97 for PT/OT, AOR 0.91 for ST) were less likely to have received therapies compared to Caucasian patients. Patients with PD with at least one neurologist visit per year were 43% more likely to have a claim for PT evaluation as compared to patients without neurologist care (AOR 1.43, 1.30-1.48), and this relationship was similar for OT evaluation, PT/OT treatment, and ST. Geographically, Western states had the greatest use of rehabilitation therapies, but provider supply did not correlate with utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This claims-based analysis suggests that rehabilitation therapy utilization among older patients with PD in the United States is lower than reported for countries with comparable health care infrastructure. Neurologist care is associated with rehabilitation therapy use; provider supply is not