4.4 Article

Aerobic Exercise to Improve Executive Function in Parkinson Disease: A Case Series

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGIC PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 58-64

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31829219bc

关键词

cognition; cycling; dual-task performance; wellness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: Parkinson disease (PD) affects cognition, specifically executive function. In people with PD, impaired executive function has been identified as an indicator of fall risk and decreased quality of life. Therefore, it is important to consider impaired executive function in the physical therapy management of PD. It has been established that exercise improves cognition in older adults and emerging evidence suggests a similar effect in people with neurological conditions. We assessed changes in executive function in an aerobic exercise intervention in 2 people with cognitive impairments due to PD. Case Description: Two individuals with PD participated in this case series. Participant 1 was a 61-year-old woman with PD dementia, who had PD for 14 years. Participant 2 was a 72-year-old man with mild cognitive impairments, who had PD for 7 years. Intervention: The participants completed an 8-week program of aerobic exercise training on a stationary bicycle. Primary outcome measures examined executive function, and secondary measures examined disease severity, quality of life, and walking function. Outcomes: Both participants demonstrated improvements in all measures of executive function and quality of life. Participant 1 also made improvements in walking function. Discussion: Our outcomes provide preliminary evidence of improved executive function following aerobic exercise in people with PD with cognitive impairments. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and investigate whether a causal relationship exists between exercise and improved executive function in persons with PD, and how these impact motor performance and quality of life measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据