EFFECTIVENESS OF GROUP-FORMAT CONTINUED CONTENSION THERAPY ON THE OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF POST-STROKE PATIENTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN THREE PROTOCOLS
upper extremity stroke; rehabilitation; motor dexterity.
Introduction: Induced Contention Therapy (ICD) is a behavioral technique with high level of evidence in upper limb motor rehabilitation in patients after chronic stroke. The original protocol consists of task-oriented repetitive training of the most affected upper limb for two weeks, six hours a day, and healthy limb restriction for 90% of the remainder of the time outside the therapeutic setting. Due to the difficulties in implementing a traditional approach, it was developed modified protocols with different practice hours, such as 3 hours and 1 hour and 30 minutes. It is believed that with the shorter protocol, associated with the group approach, it has the same benefits as the original protocol, generating greater adherence, motivation to treatment and time of home activity and cost reduction. Objectives: To compare the original 6-hour protocol with modified 3-hour and 1-hour 30-minute protocols for upper limb neurofunctional recovery in post-group stroke patients. Methodology: This is a quasi-experimental clinical study composed of 12 patients diagnosed with chronic stroke attended at the Clinical School of Trairi Health Sciences College (FACISA). The research was divided into five phases. Phases A1, A2 and A3 were administered at 3 hours, 6 hours and 1 hour and 30 minutes TCI respectively, five days a week for two weeks. Phase B1 and B2, exercises and conventional therapy 1 hour a day, once a week, for 5 months. The three protocols addressed the principles of ICT (shaping, task pactice and behavioral package). For comparison measures, the Wolf Motor Function Test, the Motor Activity Log and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement were used. These tests were administered before and at the immediate end of each protocol, and 3 months after each protocol. Partial Result: There was no statistical difference between the comparative scales. The only difference found was the average repetition between tasks 1 and 2, and 1 and 10.