OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact on balance (postural control) of six 1-h circuit classes that targeted balance in addition to usual therapy for rehabilitation inpatients. DESIGN: a randomised controlled trial with 2-week and 3-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: one hundred and sixty-two general rehabilitation inpatients, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Australia. INTERVENTION: intervention group participants received six 1-h circuit classes over a 2-week period in addition to usual therapy. Control group participants received usual therapy. RESULTS: standing balance performance (primary outcome) was better in the intervention group than in the control group at 2 weeks (between-group difference after adjusting for baseline values 3.3 s; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.7, P = 0.009), but the between-group difference was not statistically significant at 3 months (3.4 s; 95% CI -0.56 to 7.38, P = 0.092). Intervention group outcomes were significantly better than the control groups for mobility performance (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 2 weeks (1.19, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.87, P <0.01) and 3 months (1.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.00, P < 0.049) and self-reported functioning (AM-PAC) at 2 weeks (5.39, 95% CI 1.20 to 9.57, P = 0.012). The intervention group had a 4.1-day shorter rehabilitation unit stay (95% CI -8.3 to 0.16, P = 0.059) and a lower risk of readmission in the 3 months after randomisation (incidence rate ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.18, P = 0.184), but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: two weeks of standing balance circuit classes in addition to usual therapy improved balance in general rehabilitation inpatients at 2 weeks.
AD - Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Physiotherapy Department, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, PO Box Locked Mail Bag 1600, Bankstown, New South Wales 2200, Australia.OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact on balance (postural control) of six 1-h circuit classes that targeted balance in addition to usual therapy for rehabilitation inpatients. DESIGN: a randomised controlled trial with 2-week and 3-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: one hundred and sixty-two general rehabilitation inpatients, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Australia. INTERVENTION: intervention group participants received six 1-h circuit classes over a 2-week period in addition to usual therapy. Control group participants received usual therapy. RESULTS: standing balance performance (primary outcome) was better in the intervention group than in the control group at 2 weeks (between-group difference after adjusting for baseline values 3.3 s; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.7, P = 0.009), but the between-group difference was not statistically significant at 3 months (3.4 s; 95% CI -0.56 to 7.38, P = 0.092). Intervention group outcomes were significantly better than the control groups for mobility performance (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 2 weeks (1.19, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.87, P <0.01) and 3 months (1.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.00, P < 0.049) and self-reported functioning (AM-PAC) at 2 weeks (5.39, 95% CI 1.20 to 9.57, P = 0.012). The intervention group had a 4.1-day shorter rehabilitation unit stay (95% CI -8.3 to 0.16, P = 0.059) and a lower risk of readmission in the 3 months after randomisation (incidence rate ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.18, P = 0.184), but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: two weeks of standing balance circuit classes in addition to usual therapy improved balance in general rehabilitation inpatients at 2 weeks.
PY - 2015 SN - 1468-2834 (Electronic)