High-Dose, High-Intensity Stroke Rehabilitation: Why Aren't We Giving It?

Abstract

Current doses and intensities of post-stroke rehabilitation therapy provided as “usual care” are paltry compared to the magnitudes needed to drive large behaviorally-relevant reductions in neurologic impairments. There is convergent evidence indicating that high dose, high intensity rehabilitation is effective for improving outcomes after stroke with large effect sizes compared to usual care. Here we highlight some of this evidence (focusing on studies of upper extremity motor rehabilitation) and then ask the simple question— why are we <i>not</i> delivering high doses and intensities of rehabilitation in clinical practice? We contend that reasons for lack of implementation of high dose, high intensity rehabilitation have to do with questionable conceptual, ideological, and economic assumptions. In addition, there are practical challenges, which we argue can be overcome with technology. Current practice (we refer primarily to the context of US healthcare) in stroke rehabilitation is itself built on very little evidence, indeed considerably less than the cumulative evidence indicating that high dose, high intensity rehabilitation would be more effective. Our hope is that this Perspective will help persuade multiple stake holders (neurologists, physiatrists, therapists, researchers, patients, policy makers, and insurance companies) to advocate for higher doses and intensities of rehabilitation. There is certainly more research to be done on new ways to deliver high-dose, high-intensity neurorehabilitation, as well as zeroing in on its best timing and dosing, and how to best combine it with drugs and physiological stimulation. In the meantime, our view is that a large body of convergent evidence already justifies seeking to incorporate higher doses and intensities of therapy into current clinical practice as the new standard of care.