This pilot study looked at whether a specific type of balance training could be useful for people with chronic stroke. The research involved 28 community-dwelling adults who could walk independently without a gait aid. Participants were randomly assigned to either six weeks of reactive balance training or traditional balance training. The main goal was to test the feasibility of using unexpected slips as a way to measure progress. All unexpected slips were triggered as intended during the training sessions. Participants did not report increased state anxiety or concerns about the unexpected slip method. Data suggested that those in the reactive balance training group showed better stability following an unexpected slip compared to the control group. There were also differences in walking patterns before and after training between the two groups. No adverse events or discontinuations were reported. The study highlights that this approach is feasible for research settings. However, the value of these specific measurements in future clinical trials may depend on carefully balancing the groups on prognostic factors. This early work indicates potential benefits but requires further investigation to confirm long-term effects.
Six weeks of reactive balance training feasibility in community-dwelling adults with chronic strokeSix weeks of reactive balance training shows promise for stroke recovery
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This pilot study was embedded within an assessor-blinded parallel randomized controlled trial. It involved 28 community-dwelling adults with chronic stroke who could walk independently without a gait aid for more than 10 meters. Participants were randomized into two groups: one received six weeks of reactive balance training, while the control group received traditional balance training. Only 12 participants completed the post-training unexpected slip data collection.
The primary outcome assessed the feasibility and utility of using unexpected and untrained balance perturbations. All unexpected slips were triggered as intended during the study period. Participants did not report increased state anxiety or concerns about the unexpected slip perturbation.
Spatiotemporal and kinematic data suggested better stability following the unexpected slip for the reactive balance training group than the control group. There were also between-group differences in spatiotemporal and kinematic features of walking pre- and post-training. Safety data indicated no serious adverse events or discontinuations were reported.
Key limitations note that between-group differences in walking features pre- and post-training may affect the value of unexpected slips as outcomes in clinical trials. The value of these outcomes may depend on balancing the groups on prognostic factors. This study serves as a feasibility assessment rather than a definitive efficacy trial.