1,048
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

BOBATH vs. TASK-ORIENTED TRAINING AFTER STROKE: An assessor-blind randomized controlled trial

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 581-587 | Received 30 Apr 2022, Accepted 12 Apr 2023, Published online: 19 Apr 2023
 

ABSTRACT

Objectives

To evaluate/compare the effects of the Bobath concept and task-oriented training on motor function, muscle thickness, balance, gait, and perception of goal achievement in patients with stroke.

Methods

Thirty-two patients were randomly divided into Bobath and task-oriented groups. Exercises were applied for one hour a day, three days a week, for eight weeks. Clinical (Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS), Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM), Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), balance, gait)) and trunk muscle thickness assessments (with ultrasound) were performed.

Results

Thirty patients completed the study. TIS, STREAM, and GAS scores were increased in both groups (all p < 0.05). Bilateral rectus abdominis thickness was found to have increased in the Bobath group whereby this increase was better when compared with the task-oriented group (p < 0.05). The limits of stability increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Postural sway was decreased in the anteroposterior (normal stability eyes open) in the Bobath group and the anteroposterior (perturbated stability eyes closed) in the task-oriented group. Velocity, step length, and functional ambulation profile scores increased, and double support of the paretic side decreased in the task-oriented group (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The Bobath concept appears to be superior to task-oriented training in increasing the thickness of rectus abdominis in patients with stroke. Although the task-oriented training provided significant improvement, especially in terms of gait, no superiority was found between the two rehabilitation approaches in terms of functional ability.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants involved in the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 727.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.