PTOTSLPCohortJournal of rehabilitation medicine2021

Tolerability and psychological effects of a multimodal day-care rehabilitation program for persons with Huntington's disease.

Karin Ringqvist, Kristian Borg, Marika C Möller

PMID 32989469

WHAT IT FOUND

People with Huntington's disease who completed an 8-week multimodal day-care rehabilitation programme reported less anxiety and depression and better self-rated health.

The study was small and uncontrolled, so it cannot show the programme caused these changes.

Key findings

0120 patients completed the programme, and 2 of 22 enrolled patients dropped out.

02Anxiety and depression scores improved significantly after the programme, and self-rated health improved significantly, while sense of coherence did not.

03Mini-BEST balance scores improved significantly, but the other physical measures did not.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 20 patients completed the programme, and 2 of 22 enrolled patients dropped out, so the sample is small. There was no control group, so improvement could be due to time, natural fluctuation or other changes. Data were collected by the treating team, and examiners were not blinded. Self-rated questionnaires may be unreliable because Huntington's disease often affects awareness. The sample included adults able to take part in group activities and was aimed at early disease stages, so it may not apply to more advanced disease. 80% of the sample was female, although Huntington's disease affects men and women equally. The written evaluation was not validated. The programme included many treatments at once, so the effect of any one component cannot be separated. Physical measures were missing for some patients, and anxiety and depression analyses excluded one outlier. The study used years since diagnosis, not disease onset, and had no follow-up.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that this programme caused the improvements. It had no control group, only 20 patients completed it, and many treatments were delivered together, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.

Read it on PubMed →