MIRROR THERAPY AND SELF-CARE AUTONOMY AFTER STOKE
The article has explicitly stated the purpose of the study, which is to determine the effectiveness, reliability, and validity of the mirror therapy intervention program. Also, the study has postulated sufficient and relevant background study meant to affirm the understanding of the various issues that characterize individuals with Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke. For instance, the negative impacts experienced by individuals suffering from the MCA stroke. The study used a cross-sectional research design to facilitate a good understanding of the mirror therapy intervention program. The cross-sectional selected participants were suffering from MCA stroke from various medical institutions with a sample size of thirty participants. Importantly, the study obtained informed consent from the target participants before enrolling them in the study. Despite obtaining informed consent, most of the participants did not complete the test (Only five and three participants completed the test from the experimental and control groups, respectively). Moreover, the study exhibited certain biases, such as the exclusion of individuals with aphasia from participating in the study.
To facilitate the program’s effectiveness, the authors practiced a detailed description of the intervention, including its benefits. However, they failed to mention the existence of cointervention and contamination. The results deduced from the intervention program were analyzed with the statistical tests to determine the intervention’s significance. The statistical tests used in the study exhibited a smaller significance difference between the two groups of the participants (Castro, Martins, Couto & Reis, 2018). Hence made the mirror intervention to be deemed ineffective despite the various gains reported to be contributed by the intervention program. More so, the outcome measures were regarded as unreliable and invalid since the gains could not be proven through the statistical significance test. This was the major limitation that characterized the mirror therapy intervention program. The limitation could have been overcome by using a large sample with a sample of twenty-six and above participants in every group. However, despite the lack of the statistical significance distinction between the two groups. The program is considered significant since it can guide the development of future research among those who refute its relevance to those who would wish to expand its findings. This would help the clinicians develop evidence-based practice necessary to address the needs of patients with stroke.
Reference
Castro, P., Martins, M., Couto, G., & Reis, M. (2018). Mirror therapy and self-care autonomy after stroke: an intervention program.