Effects of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Gait Performance, Respiratory Function, and Psychological Variables in Patients Post-Stroke
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Sample Size Calculation
2.3. Participants and Recruitment
2.4. Dogs and Handlers
2.4.1. Animal-Assisted Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation
2.4.2. Gait Training for Control Group
2.5. Assessments
2.5.1. Gait Performance
2.5.2. Respiratory Function Test
2.5.3. Rehabilitation Motivation Assessment
2.5.4. Depression Assessment
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics
3.2. Changes in Gait Performance
3.3. Changes in Respiratory Function
3.4. Changes in Rehabilitation Motivation
3.5. Changes in Depression
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Thilarajah, S.; Mentiplay, B.F.; Bower, K.J.; Tan, D.; Pua, Y.H.; Williams, G.; Clark, R.A. Factors associated with post-stroke physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 99, 1876–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salbach, N.M.; Mayo, N.E.; Robichaud-Ekstrand, S.; Hanley, J.A.; Richards, C.L.; Wood-Dauphinee, S. Balance self-efficacy and its relevance to physical function and perceived health status after stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2006, 87, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sackley, C.M. The relationships between weight-bearing asymmetry after stroke, motor function and activities of daily living. Physiother. Theory Pract. 1990, 6, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaete, J.M.; Bogousslavsky, J. Post-stroke depression. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2008, 8, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenzi, G.L.; Altieri, M.; Maestrini, I. Post-stroke depression. Rev. Neurol. 2008, 164, 837–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahn, D.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Jeong, J.H.; Kim, Y.R.; Park, J.B. The effect of post-stroke depression on rehabilitation outcome and the impact of caregiver type as a factor of post-stroke depression. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 39, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oh, S.Y.; Hwang, S.Y.; Chung, M.L.; Lennie, T.A. A Prediction Model of Rehabilitation Motivation in Middle-Aged Survivors of Stroke in Rehabilitation Facilities in Korea. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2020, 35, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lai, S.M.; Studenski, S.; Richards, L.; Perera, S.; Reker, D.; Rigler, S.; Duncan, P.W. Therapeutic exercise and depressive symptoms after stroke. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006, 54, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eng, J.J.; Reime, B. Exercise for depressive symptoms in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Rehabil. 2014, 28, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carin-Levy, G.; Kendall, M.; Young, A.; Mead, G. The psychosocial effects of exercise and relaxation classes for persons surviving a stroke. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 2009, 76, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaughnessy, M.; Michael, K.; Resnick, B. Impact of treadmill exercise on efficacy expectations, physical activity, and stroke recovery. J. Neurosci. Nurs. J. Am. Assoc. Neurosci. Nurses 2012, 44, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aidar, F.J.; de Matos, D.G.; de Oliveira, R.J.; Carneiro, A.L.; Cabral, B.G.D.A.T.; Dantas, P.M.S.; Reis, V.M. Relationship between depression and strength training in survivors of the ischemic stroke. J. Hum. Kinet. 2014, 43, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weiss, A.; Suzuki, T.; Bean, J.; Fielding, R.A. High intensity strength training improves strength and functional performance after stroke. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000, 79, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lasa, S.M.; Bocanegra, N.M.; Alcaide, R.V.; Arratibel, M.A.; Donoso, E.V.; Ferriero, G. Animal assisted interventions in neurorehabilitation: A review of the most recent literature. Neurol. Engl. 2015, 30, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Hediger, K.; Thommen, S.; Wagner, C.; Gaab, J.; Hund-Georgiadis, M. Effects of animal-assisted therapy on social behaviour in patients with acquired brain injury: A randomised controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hediger, K.; Boek, F.; Sachers, J.; Blankenburg, U.; Antonius-Kluger, E.; Rist, B.; Kluger, G. Dog-Assisted Therapy in Neurorehabilitation of Children with Severe Neurological Impairment: An Explorative Study. Neuropediatrics 2020, 51, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stapleton, M. Effectiveness of animal assisted therapy after brain injury: A bridge to improved outcomes in CRT. NeuroRehabilitation 2016, 39, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machová, K.; Procházková, R.; Říha, M.; Svobodová, I. The Effect of Animal-Assisted Therapy on the State of Patients’ Health After a Stroke: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rondeau, L.; Corriveau, H.; Bier, N.; Camden, C.; Champagne, N.; Dion, C. Effectiveness of a rehabilitation dog in fostering gait retraining for adults with a recent stroke: A multiple single-case study. NeuroRehabilitation 2010, 27, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, D.; Cross, C.; Matthews, J.; McDonald, S.; Fell, N. The Effect of Animal Assisted Therapy on Participation in Rehabilitation in a Patient Post-Stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019, 100, e128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.J.; Cho, K.H. Immediate Effects of Abdominal Pressure Belt on Limited of Stability and Gait Parameter in Patients after Chronic Stroke: One-group pretest-posttest design. J. Korea Converg. Soc. 2020, 11, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, Y.H.; Kim, N.H.; Son, S.M.; Cha, Y.J. Effects of Trunk Stabilization Exercise While Wearing a Pelvic Compression Belt on Walking and Balancing Abilities in Patients with Stroke: An Assessor Blinded, Preliminary, Randomized, Controlled Study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 99, 1048–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alqahtani, A.S.; Alajam, R.; Eickmeyer, S.M.; Vardey, R.; Liu, W. Feasibility and trend of pulmonary function in a pilot trial of aerobic walking exercise in non-ambulatory stroke survivors. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2020, 27, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peluso, S.; De Rosa, A.; De Lucia, N.; Antenora, A.; Illario, M.; Esposito, M.; De Michele, G. Animal-assisted therapy in elderly patients: Evidence and controversies in dementia and psychiatric disorders and future perspectives in other neurological diseases. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 2018, 31, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kil, T.; Kim, H.M.; Kim, M. The effectiveness of group combined intervention using animal-assisted therapy and integrated elderly play therapy. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2019, 61, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coleman, K.J.; Rosenberg, D.E.; Conway, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Cain, K. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cole, K.M.; Gawlinski, A.; Steers, N.; Kotlerman, J. Animal-assisted therapy in patients hospitalized with heart failure. Am. J. Crit. Care 2007, 16, 575–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mottram, C. Ruppel’s Manual of Pulmonary Function Testing-e-Book; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- White, G.N.; Cordato, D.J.; O’Rourke, F.; Mendis, R.L.; Ghia, D.; Chan, D.K.Y. Validation of the Stroke Rehabilitation Motivation Scale: A pilot study. Asian J. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2012, 7, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
- Park, M.; Lee, J.Y.; Ham, Y.; Oh, S.W.; Shin, J.H. Korean Version of the Stroke Rehabilitation Motivation Scale: Reliability and Validity Evaluation. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2020, 44, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A.T.; Steer, R.A.; Brown, G. BDI-II, Beck depression inventory: Manual; Psychological Corp: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Lerdal, A.; Kottorp, A.; Gay, C.L.; Grov, E.K.; Lee, K.A. Rasch analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in stroke survivors: A cross-sectional study. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 158, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Glenk, L.M. Current perspectives on therapy dog welfare in animal-assisted interventions. Animals 2017, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barstad, B.N. Evaluation of Animal Welfare in Dogs Working with Animal Assisted Interventions for Elderly People with Dementia. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Oslo, Norway, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.H.; Min, K.D.; Cho, S.I.; Cho, S. The Relationship Between Dog-Related Factors and Owners’ Attitudes Toward Pets: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in Korea. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marx, M.S.; Cohen-Mansfield, J.; Regier, N.G.; Dakheel-Ali, M.; Srihari, A.; Thein, K. The impact of different dog-related stimuli on engagement of persons with dementia. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Dement. 2010, 25, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ha, S.Y.; Sung, Y.H. Attentional concentration during physiotherapeutic intervention improves gait and trunk control in patients with stroke. Neurosci. Lett. 2020, 736, 135291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Usman, S.A.; Sadau, Y.; Muhammad, M.S.; Bukar, I.A.; Yarube, I.U. Effect of Exercise Type and Gender on Cardiopulmonary response among Stroke Survivors in Spastic and Relative Recovery Stages. J. Afr. Assoc. Physiol. Sci. 2020, 8, 125–132. [Google Scholar]
- Theis, F.; Luck, F.; Hund-Georgiadis, M.; Hediger, K. Influences of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Episodic Memory in Patients with Acquired Brain Injuries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vegue, P.E.; Hernández, G.J.M.; Echevarría, P.P. Benefits of Dog-Assisted Therapy in Patients with Dementia Residing in Aged Care Centers in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macauley, B.L. Animal-assisted therapy for persons with aphasia: A pilot study. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2006, 43, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Classification | Weeks | Time | Program |
---|---|---|---|
Early stage | 1 week | 30 min | Communication for patient/dog relationship |
2 weeks | 30 min | ||
Middle stage | 3 weeks | 30 min | Gait training with dog indoors (straight walking, figure of 8 walking, and free walking) |
4 weeks | 30 min | ||
Final stage | 5–6 weeks | 30 min | Gait training with dog outdoors (walk with a dog at the promenade) |
7–8 weeks | 30 min |
Classification | Experimental Group (n = 15) | Control Group (n = 15) | X2/t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender (male/female) | 9/6 | 9/6 | 0.001 b | 1.000 b |
Paretic side (right/left) | 8/7 | 7/8 | 0.133 b | 1.000 b |
Pathogenesis (infarction/hemorrhages) | 9/6 | 11/4 | 0.600 b | 0.700 b |
Disease duration (months) a | 12.93 ± 3.45 | 13.60 ± 3.64 | 0.515 c | 0.611 c |
Age (years) a | 60.93 ± 8.24 | 63.93 ± 7.68 | 1.032 c | 0.311 c |
Height (cm) a | 165.67 ± 9.39 | 164.47 ± 10.05 | −0.338 c | 0.738 c |
Weight (kg) a | 70.60 ± 8.19 | 69.87 ± 6.96 | −0.264 c | 0.794 c |
K-MMSE (score) a | 27.07 ± 1.39 | 26.60 ± 1.64 | −0.842 c | 0.407 c |
BBS (score) a | 47.80 ± 2.76 | 47.07 ± 3.08 | −0.687 c | 0.498 c |
Classification | Before Intervention a | After Intervention a | Within Group Change b | % | Time | Paired-t | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
Cadence (steps/min) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 88.11 ± 12.11 | 106.18 ± 11.35 | 18.07 ± 2.05 | 20.30 | 80.145 | 0.001 ** | 8.833 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 86.13 ± 12.57 | 89.53 ± 13.88 | 3.40 ± 1.25 | 3.95 | 2.717 | 0.017 * | ||
Gait speed (m/s) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 0.75 ± 0.11 | 1.04 ± 0.12 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 38.67 | 168.846 | 0.001 ** | 14.645 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 0.72 ± 0.17 | 0.76 ± 0.18 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 5.56 | 2.593 | 0.021 * | ||
Stride length (m) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 1.03 ± 0.08 | 1.18 ± 0.08 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 14.56 | 102.924 | 0.001 ** | 10.305 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 1.01 ± 0.15 | 1.02 ± 0.14 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.99 | 2.229 | 0.043 * | ||
Symmetric index (%) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 80.23 ± 5.66 | 85.42 ± 5.45 | 5.19 ± 1.04 | 6.47 | 37.313 | 0.001 ** | 4.984 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 77.10 ± 5.31 | 79.38 ± 6.00 | 2.28 ± 0.64 | 2.96 | 3.556 | 0.003 ** |
Classification | Between Group Change a | Effect Size | Time * Groups | Independent-t | NNT (n) | ARR (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
Cadence (steps/min) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −14.67 (−19.59, −9.76) | 2.23 | 4.458 | 0.044 * | −6.117 | 0.001 ** | 6 | 16.35 |
Control group | ||||||||
Gait speed (m/s) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −0.25 (−0.30, −0.19) | 3.57 | 8.911 | 0.006 ** | −9720 | 0.001 ** | 3 | 33.11 |
Control group | ||||||||
Stride length (m) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −0.13 (−0.17, −0.10) | 2.60 | 4.458 | 0.044 * | −8.052 | 0.001 ** | 7 | 13.57 |
Control group | ||||||||
Symmetric index (%) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −2.91 (−5.44, −0.38) | 0.87 | 5.501 | 0.023 * | −2.381 | 0.026 * | 28 | 3.51 |
Control group |
Classification | Before Intervention a | After Intervention a | Within Group Change b | % | Time | Paired-t | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
FEV1 (ℓ) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 2.29 ± 0.45 | 2.90 ± 0.40 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 26.64 | 117.676 | 0.001 ** | 16.380 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 2.18 ± 0.33 | 2.43 ± 0.37 | 0.25 ± 0.07 | 11.47 | 3.534 | 0.003 ** | ||
FVC (ℓ) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 2.58 ± 0.33 | 3.13 ± 0.31 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 21.32 | 47.056 | 0.001 ** | 9.419 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 2.46 ± 0.35 | 2.74 ± 0.41 | 0.28 ± 0.10 | 11.38 | 2.630 | 0.020 * | ||
PEF (ℓ/min) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 252.00 ± 41.40 | 328.47 ± 43.17 | 76.47 ± 10.40 | 30.35 | 51.871 | 0.001 ** | 7.351 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 237.87 ± 51.06 | 278.93 ± 49.80 | 41.07 ± 12.57 | 17.26 | 3.266 | 0.006 ** | ||
MIP (mmHg) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 41.27 ± 10.76 | 54.93 ± 9.05 | 13.67 ± 1.22 | 33.10 | 61.318 | 0.001 ** | 11.224 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 38.47 ± 10.18 | 43.47 ± 9.21 | 5.00 ± 2.05 | 13.00 | 2.440 | 0.029 * | ||
MEP (mmHg) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 49.73 ± 10.78 | 69.80 ± 9.81 | 20.07 ± 1.35 | 40.36 | 67.329 | 0.001 ** | 14.821 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 47.87 ± 10.07 | 57.73 ± 10.60 | 9.87 ± 3.39 | 20.60 | 11.224 | 0.001 ** |
Classification | Between Group Change a | Effect Size | Time * Groups | Independent-t | NNT (n) | ARR (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
FEV1 (ℓ) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −0.36 (−0.53, −0.20) | 1.64 | 4.614 | 0.041 * | −4.618 | 0.001 ** | 6 | 15.17 |
Control group | ||||||||
FVC (ℓ) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −0.27 (−0.52, −0.02) | 0.82 | 4.809 | 0.037 * | −2.257 | 0.034 * | 10 | 9.94 |
Control group | ||||||||
PEF (ℓ/min) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −35.40 (−68.83, −1.97) | 0.79 | 4.560 | 0.042 * | −2.169 | 0.039 * | 7 | 13.09 |
Control group | ||||||||
MIP (mmHg) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −8.67 (−13.55, −3.78) | 1.33 | 4.444 | 0.044 * | −3.636 | 0.001 ** | 4 | 20.10 |
Control group | ||||||||
MEP (mmHg) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −10.20 (−17.67, −2.73) | 1.02 | 4.460 | 0.044 * | −2.796 | 0.012 * | 5 | 19.76 |
Control group |
Classification | Before Intervention a | After Intervention a | Within Group Change b | % | Time | Paired-t | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
K-SRMS (total score) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 78.73 ± 7.85 | 90.80 ± 5.00 | 12.07 ± 0.90 | 15.33 | 103.353 | 0.001 ** | 13.454 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 76.67 ± 7.79 | 78.73 ± 9.48 | 2.07 ± 1.06 | 2.69 | 1.946 | 0.072 |
Classification | Between Group Change a | Effect Size | Time * Groups | Independent-t | NNT (n) | ARR (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
K-SRMS (total score) | ||||||||
Experimental group | −10.00 (−12.85, −7.15) | 2.63 | 6.730 | 0.015 * | −7.193 | 0.001 ** | 7 | 12.64 |
Control group |
Classification | before Intervention a | after Intervention a | within Group Change b | % | Time | Paired-t | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
BDI-II (total score) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 14.47 ± 5.79 | 6.47 ± 3.18 | −8.00 ± 0.89 | −55.29 | 70.931 | 0.001 ** | −8.998 | 0.001 ** |
Control group | 15.00 ± 6.44 | 13.60 ± 4.76 | −1.40 ± 0.67 | −9.33 | −2.075 | 0.057 |
Classification | Between Group Change a | Effect Size | Time * Groups | Independent-t | NNT (n) | ARR (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | t | p | |||||
BDI-II (total score) | ||||||||
Experimental group | 6.60 (4.31, 8.89) | 2.16 | 4.478 | 0.043 * | 5.913 | 0.001 ** | 2 | 45.96 |
Control group |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
An, H.-J.; Park, S.-J. Effects of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Gait Performance, Respiratory Function, and Psychological Variables in Patients Post-Stroke. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115818
An H-J, Park S-J. Effects of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Gait Performance, Respiratory Function, and Psychological Variables in Patients Post-Stroke. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(11):5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115818
Chicago/Turabian StyleAn, Ho-Jung, and Shin-Jun Park. 2021. "Effects of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Gait Performance, Respiratory Function, and Psychological Variables in Patients Post-Stroke" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 11: 5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115818