Experimental program improved motor function and quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease, indicating advantages of cognitive integration.
Parkinson’s disease is a chronic progressive disease accompanied by motor and cognitive impairment, which considerably complicates the rehabilitation process and reduces the quality of life of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified physical therapy programme adapted to the cognitive status of patients. The study involved 10 patients who were divided into two equal groups: the experimental group (n = 5), which underwent an adapted programme with multisensory stimulation, cognitive motor exercises and slow learning, and the control group (n = 5), which received standard physical therapy. Tests were used for objective assessment: Timed Up and Go (TUG), UPDRS (motor part), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), PDQ-39 and SF-36. As a result, patients in the experimental group demonstrated positive dynamics in all indicators. Specifically, the time in the TUG test decreased from 16.8 ± 0.7 s to 13.2 ± 0.5 s, the UPDRS score decreased from 42.5 ± 2.1 pts to 35.4 ± 1.9 pts, the BBS balance score increased from 38.5 ± 1.5 pts to 41.8 ± 1.3 pts, while the PDQ-39 quality of life index improved from 59.3% ± 3.4% to 48.7% ± 3.1%. The results obtained reflect the expediency of individualising rehabilitation programmes based on the cognitive profile of patients. The addition of cognitive tasks to physical therapy not only improved motor function but also helped to reduce cognitive deficits and improved overall quality of life. The practical value of this study lies in the possibility of implementing a modified physical therapy programme in clinical practice, particularly for multidisciplinary teams working in the field of neurorehabilitation, physical therapists, rehabilitation therapists, and neurologists. The proposed approach can be an effective tool for increasing the functional independence of patients with Parkinson’s disease
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klymenok et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: