Affiliations: [a] Physical Therapy Postgraduate Program, Department of Physical Therapy, Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Brazilian Parkinson’s disease Rehabilitation Initiative (BPaRkI), Florianópolis, Brazil
| [b]
Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil
| [c]
Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Araranguá, Brazil
| [d]
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Miami-Miller School of Medicine (UM), Coral Gables, FL, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Alessandra Swarowsky, PT, PhD., Physical Therapy Postgraduate Program, Physical Therapy Department, Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil, Brazilian Parkinson’s disease Rehabilitation Initiative (BPaRkI). Rua, Pascoal Simone, 358. Zip code 88080350, Brazil. Tel.: +55 48 36648621; E-mail: alessandra.martin@udesc.br.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:The Timed up and go test (TUG), the Five times sit-to-stand test (FTSTS) and the Bed Mobility test (BMT) are widely used in clinical practice for Parkinson Disease (PD). However, no reported studies have evaluated the responsiveness to group physical therapy intervention (GPTI). OBJECTIVE:To verify if TUG, FTSTS and BMT were responsive to GPTI. METHODS:Thirty individuals with PD were assessed prior to and after an 8-week evidence-based GPTI. Paired t test was used to determine statistically significant change pre-and post-intervention. Internal responsiveness (IR) was classified with the standardized response mean (SRM). A 5-point Likert scale assessed self-perceived performance by the subjects after the intervention. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the accuracy and cut-off scores for identifying participants who had shown improvement. RESULTS:GPTI was efficient in improving real (p≤0.001) and self-perceived mobility performance in all measures. All tests were responsive to changes: the IR varied from medium to high (SRM = 0.7–1.5); the cut-off point for TUG test was >2.2 s, for FTSTS test was >2.5 s and for BM test >1.4 s. CONCLUSIONS:The TUG, FTSTS and BMT were responsive to the GPTI and accurately detected meaningful clinical changes. Our results provide an important information about the clinical application of these tests in PD individuals.
