International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026
The future of high-dose, high-intensity neurorehabilitation: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Branscheidt Meret, Mahmoud Wala J, Bauer Christoph, Cortés Juan C, Cotton R James, Cramer Steven C, Gallegos-Berrios Sebastian, Kwakkel Gert, Lambercy Olivier, Laver Kate, Picelli Alessandro, Salbach Nancy M, Solomon John M, Teasell Robert, Van Criekinge Tamaya, Weerdesteyn Vivian, Krakauer John W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Convergent evidence indicates that high-dose, high-intensity rehabilitation (HDHI) improves outcomes beyond usual care after stroke, yet implementation remains limited. While questions of optimal dose, timing, and delivery format continue to be refined, the biological plausibility and clinical rationale for HDHI are well established. The fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable convened to identify principal barriers to wider HDHI uptake and derive actionable solutions.
METHODS: Sixteen international experts from nine countries used a structured consensus process, including surveys, barrier ranking, targeted evidence reviews, and a 2-day in-person meeting.
RESULTS: Four interrelated barriers were identified: (1) a conceptual knowledge gap persists regarding HDHI's targets, mechanisms, and effects; (2) scale and delivery constraints prevent the required dose from being delivered by current conventional care models, making home- and community-based hybrid pathways essential; (3) resistance to change despite the evidence because it places strain on clinicians given their time constraints, inflexible remuneration, and low levels of administrative support; and (4) insufficient system-level enablers to provide longitudinal continuity, patient coordination, and readily accessible technology.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The primary limitation to HDHI is implementation capacity, not biological plausibility, or lack of evidence. Implementation research should now proceed in parallel with ongoing efficacy refinement. Priorities include building mechanistic and evidentiary literacy, clarifying professional roles, enabling home-based delivery, aligning reimbursement with long-term economic evaluation, and developing the infrastructure and protocols for scalable longitudinal care.
METHODS: Sixteen international experts from nine countries used a structured consensus process, including surveys, barrier ranking, targeted evidence reviews, and a 2-day in-person meeting.
RESULTS: Four interrelated barriers were identified: (1) a conceptual knowledge gap persists regarding HDHI's targets, mechanisms, and effects; (2) scale and delivery constraints prevent the required dose from being delivered by current conventional care models, making home- and community-based hybrid pathways essential; (3) resistance to change despite the evidence because it places strain on clinicians given their time constraints, inflexible remuneration, and low levels of administrative support; and (4) insufficient system-level enablers to provide longitudinal continuity, patient coordination, and readily accessible technology.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The primary limitation to HDHI is implementation capacity, not biological plausibility, or lack of evidence. Implementation research should now proceed in parallel with ongoing efficacy refinement. Priorities include building mechanistic and evidentiary literacy, clarifying professional roles, enabling home-based delivery, aligning reimbursement with long-term economic evaluation, and developing the infrastructure and protocols for scalable longitudinal care.