Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constraint-Induced Therapies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ischemic Stroke Therapeutics

  • 58 Accesses

Abstract

Stroke resulting in motor dysfunction can lead to functional impairment and reduced quality of life. Upper extremity involvement may lead to learned nonuse where the individual avoids using the affected limb after repeated failed attempts to incorporate it into functional activities. Constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT) is designed to counteract learned nonuse by limiting reliance on the unaffected upper extremity and structuring activities to promote primary use of the affected side. Numerous CIMT protocols have evolved that vary in duration and intensity; these have been found to impact motor recovery throughout the acute, subacute, and chronic phases post-stroke. However, despite this evidence, CIMT has not been routinely incorporated into clinical care due to barriers, including high resource intensity and time commitment as well as the potential for poor patient tolerance. In response to these concerns, current research explores the efficacy of CIMT when administered in non-traditional settings including group-based interventions and remote therapy programs where supervision is provided most commonly by a family member or other caregiver.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Taub E. Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1976;4:335–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morris DM, Taub E, Mark VW. Constraint-induced movement therapy: characterizing the intervention protocol. Eura Medicophys. 2006;42(3):257–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Taub E, Crago J, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 1998;43(2):152–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolf SL, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296(17):2095–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Page SJ, et al. Modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88(3):333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Page SJ, Levine P, Khoury JC. Modified constraint-induced therapy combined with mental practice: thinking through better motor outcomes. Stroke. 2009;40(2):551–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Page SJ, et al. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(1):14–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shi YX, et al. Modified constraint-induced movement therapy versus traditional rehabilitation in patients with upper-extremity dysfunction after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(6):972–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yen J-G, et al. Effectiveness of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on upper limb function in stroke subjects. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. 2005;14(1):16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dettmers C, et al. Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(2):204–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taub E, et al. The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys. 2006;42:241–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liepert J, et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke. 2000;31(6):1210–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gauthier LV, et al. Remodeling the brain: plastic structural brain changes produced by different motor therapies after stroke. Stroke. 2008;39(5):1520–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin KC, et al. Constraint-induced therapy versus control intervention in patients with stroke: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(3):177–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Murayama T, et al. Changes in the brain activation balance in motor-related areas after constraint-induced movement therapy; a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain Inj. 2011;25(11):1047–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Purkayastha S, Sorond F. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: technique and application. Semin Neurol. 2012;32(4):411–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Treger I, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy alters cerebral blood flow in subacute post-stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(9):804–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brogardh C, Lexell J. A 1-year follow-up after shortened constraint-induced movement therapy with and without mitt poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(3):460–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Uswatte G, et al. Contribution of the shaping and restraint components of constraint-induced movement therapy to treatment outcome. NeuroRehabilitation. 2006;21:147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brogårdh C, Sjölund BH. Constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a pilot study on effects of small group training and of extended mitt use. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(3):218–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Viana R, Teasell R. Barriers to the implementation of constraint-induced movement therapy into practice. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19(2):104–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayner K, Gibson G, Giles GM. Comparison of constraint-induced movement therapy and bilateral treatment of equal intensity in people with chronic upper-extremity dysfunction after cerebrovascular accident. Am J Occup Ther. 2010;64(4):528–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brunner IC, Skouen JS, Strand LI. Is modified constraint-induced movement therapy more effective than bimanual training in improving arm motor function in the subacute phase post stroke? A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(12):1078–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stevenson T, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy compared to dose-matched interventions for upper-limb dysfunction in adult survivors of stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Physiother Can. 2012;64(4):397–413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sirtori V, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4:CD004433.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Corbetta D, et al. Constraint-induced movement therpy in stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;45:537–44.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kunkel A, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:624–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Massie C, et al. The effects of constraint-induced therapy on kinematic outcomes and compensatory movement patterns: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(4):571–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: answers and questions after two decades of research. NeuroRehabilitation. 2006;21:93–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miltner WHR, et al. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke. 1999;30:586–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blanton S, Wolf SL. An application of upper-extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. Phys Ther. 1999;79(9):847–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rowe VT, Blanton S, Wolf SL. Long-term follow-up after constraint-induced therapy: a case report of a chronic stroke survivor. Am J Occup Ther. 2009;63:317–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brogardh C, Flansbjer U-B. What is the long-term benefit of constraint-induced movement therapy? A four-year follow-up. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:418–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dahl AE, et al. Short- and long-term outcome of constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(5):436–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Taub E, et al. Method for enhancing real-world use of a more affected arm in chronic stroke: transfer package of constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2013;44(5):1383–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Takebayashi T, et al. A 6-month follow-up after constraint-induced movement therapy with and without transfer package for patients with hemiparesis after stroke: a pilot quasi-randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(5):418–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Broeks JG, et al. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(8):357–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McIntyre A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of constraint-induced movement therapy in the hemiparetic upper extremity more than six months post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19(6):499–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hiraoka K. Rehabilitation effort to improve upper extremity function post-stroke: a meta-analysis. J Phys Ther Sci. 2001;13:5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Modified constraint-induced therapy in acute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19(1):27–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Boake C, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy during early stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(1):14–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Hahn M. Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce arm impairment after ischemic stroke? Stroke. 2000;31:2984–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. El-Helow M, et al. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in acute stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;51:371–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thrane G, et al. Efficacy of constraint-induced movement therapy in early stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;29(6):517–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kwakkel G, et al. Effects of unilateral upper limb training in two distinct prognostic groups early after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(9):804–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dromerick AW, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009;73:195–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolf SL, et al. The EXCITE stroke trial: comparing early and delayed constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2309–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Siebers A, Oberg U, Skargren E. The effect of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on spasticity and motor function of the affected arm in patients with chronic stroke. Physiother Can. 2010;62(4):388–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Sun SF, et al. Application of combined botulinum toxin type A and modified constraint-induced movement therapy for an individual with chronic upper-extremity spasticity after stroke. Phys Ther. 2006;86(10):1387–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Taub E, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with conventional neurorehabilitation techniques in chronic stroke patients with plegic hands: a case series. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1):86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wu CY, et al. A randomized controlled trial of modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly stroke survivors: changes in motor impairment, daily functioning, and quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(3):273–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Boe EW, et al. Cognitive status does not predict motor gain from post stroke constraint-induced movement therapy. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(1):201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bonifer NM, Anderson KM, Arciniegas DB. Constraint-induced therapy for moderate chronic upper extremity impairment after stroke. Brain Inj. 2005;19(5):323–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Page SJ, et al. Stroke patients’ and therapists’ opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(1):55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pedlow K, Lennon S, Wilson C. Application of constraint-induced movement therapy in clinical practice: an online survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):276–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Underwood J, et al. Pain, fatigue, and intensity of practice in people with stroke who are receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(9):1241–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Leung DP, Ng AK, Fong KN. Effect of small group treatment of the modified constraint induced movement therapy for clients with chronic stroke in a community setting. Hum Mov Sci. 2009;28(6):798–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Henderson CA, Manns PJ. Group modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) in a clinical setting. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(25):2177–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Doussoulin A, et al. Recovering functional independence after a stroke through modified constraint-induced therapy. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;40(2):243–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Barzel A, et al. Comparison of two types of constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients: a pilot study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27(6):673–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Barzel A, et al. Home-based constraint-induced movement therapy for patients with upper limb dysfunction after stroke (HOMECIMT): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(9):893–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Souza WC, et al. Similar effects of two modified constraint-induced therapy protocols on motor impairment, motor function and quality of life in patients with chronic stroke. Neurol Int. 2015;7(1):5430.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hosomi M, et al. A modified method for constraint-induced movement therapy: a supervised self-training protocol. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012;21(8):767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Liu KPY, et al. A randomized controlled trial of self-regulated modified constraint-induced movement therapy in sub-acute stroke patients. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(8):1351–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lum PS, et al. Automated constraint-induced therapy extension (AutoCITE) for movement deficits after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(3A):249–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lum PS, et al. A telerehabilitation approach to delivery of constraint-induced movement therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(3):391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Taub E, et al. AutoCITE: automated delivery of CI therapy with reduced effort by therapists. Stroke. 2005;36(6):1301–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yoon JA, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy and mirror therapy for patients with subacute stroke. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(4):458–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, Parkwood Institute, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, London, ON, Canada

    Heather M. MacKenzie & Ricardo Viana

Authors
  1. Heather M. MacKenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Viana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Viana .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Bruce Ovbiagele

  2. Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Anthony S. Kim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

MacKenzie, H.M., Viana, R. (2024). Constraint-Induced Therapies. In: Ovbiagele, B., Kim, A.S. (eds) Ischemic Stroke Therapeutics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49963-0_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49963-0_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-49962-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-49963-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation