Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
9 December 2025

Effectiveness of motor relearning program in sit-to-stand transfer and activities of daily living among chronic stroke patients – a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Authors: Khadijah Abdulrahman Alfaleh https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7440-007X, Abdul Rahim Shaik https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4407-6333, Karthick Balasubramanian https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2304-8405 [email protected], Mohammed M Alshehri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-0957, Ramya Ramasamy Sanjeevi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3486-0482, Vandana Esht https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2007-3210, Weam Okab Alsalem https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3142-7493, Abdulrhman M Shahhar https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7734-3486, and Shaima A Alothman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2739-0929Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0133
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Stroke is a clinically defined syndrome characterized by an acute, focal neurological deficit due to vascular injury. Strokes can result in various disabilities, including sensory and motor abnormalities, leading to difficulties with motor control, balance and posture. Physical therapists use various neurorehabilitation approaches to enhance the functional abilities and independence of stroke patients. The motor relearning program (MRP) is a task-oriented, self-monitored, structured program based on motor control theories and neuroplasticity used in the rehabilitation of stroke patients. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MRP in improving sit-to-stand transfer and activities of daily living in individuals with chronic stroke. Materials & methods: A prospective, single-blinded, multi-centered randomized controlled trial was conducted in Saudi Arabia involving 32 chronic stroke patients randomly assigned to experimental (n = 16) and control (n = 16) groups. The experimental group received 45 minutes of MRP combined with conventional physical therapy, while the control group received conventional physical therapy alone. Interventions were delivered thrice weekly over 6 weeks (18 sessions). Outcome measures included the Barthel Index (BI) and the sit-to-stand component of the motor assessment scale (MAS), assessed pre- and post-intervention. Results: The experimental group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both MAS and BI scores (p < 0.001), with large effect sizes (r = -0.865; for MAS, Cohen’s d = 1.46 for BI). ANCOVA analyses revealed that baseline MAS scores (MAS_pre) significantly influenced post-intervention outcomes (F[1, 29] = 65.33, p < 0.001), and the group effect remained significant after adjusting for MAS_pre (F[1, 29] = 41.89, p < 0.001). The model explained 72.6% of the variance in MAS_post scores (adjusted R2 = 0.707), confirming the predictive strength of MRP. Similarly, BI_post scores were significantly predicted by BI_pre and group assignment (F[1, 29] = 21.15, p < 0.001), with the model accounting for 85.8% of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.849). Conclusion: The motor relearning program significantly improves sit-to-stand transfer and activities of daily living performance in chronic stroke patients. Despite the small sample size and baseline MAS imbalance, these improvements remained robust after statistical adjustment, underscoring MRP’s clinical utility in neurorehabilitation. Clinical trial registration was done prospectively at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ with the registration no: NCT06690073

Plain language summary

Background:

Stroke is a medical condition that can cause problems with movement, balance and daily activities. Physical therapy helps stroke survivors regain their independence. One approach called the motor relearning program (MRP) focuses on practicing everyday tasks to improve movement and brain recovery.

Purpose:

This study looked at whether MRP could help people who had a stroke improve their ability to stand up from a sitting position and perform daily activities.

What was done?

Thirty-two stroke survivors in Saudi Arabia were divided into two groups. One group received MRP along with regular physical therapy, while the other group received only regular therapy. Both groups had 45-minute sessions, three times a week, for 6 weeks. Researchers measured how well participants could stand up and carry out daily tasks before and after the treatment.

What was found?

People who received MRP showed much better improvement in standing up and doing daily activities compared with those who had regular therapy alone.

Conclusion:

The motor relearning program is a powerful tool that can help stroke survivors improve their movement and independence in daily life. It may be especially useful for people recovering from the long-term effects of a stroke.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

References

1.
Murphy SJX, Werring DJ. Stroke: causes and clinical features. Medicine (Abingdon) 48(9), 561–566 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
He Q, Wang W, Zhang Y et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for global burden of disease 2021. Stroke 55(12), 2815–2824 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Mahfouz AA, Abdelmoneim SA, Abdu SMM et al. Understanding the stroke burden in Saudi Arabia: trends from 1990 to 2019 and forecasting through time series analysis. Neurosci. J. 30(1), 49–58 (2025).
Google Scholar
4.
O'Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ. O'Sullivan & Schmitz's Physical Rehabilitation (8th Edition). F. A. Davis Company, NY, USA (2024).
Google Scholar
5.
Shahid J, Kashif A, Shahid MK. A comprehensive review of physical therapy interventions for stroke rehabilitation: impairment-based approaches and functional goals. Brain Sci. 13(5), 717 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Alhusayni AI, Alzahrani AH. A systematic review of physical therapy rehabilitation for stroke survivors in Arab countries and Saudi Arabia: current approaches and future challenges. SMJ 46(9), 976–984 (2025).
Google Scholar
7.
O'Rourke C, Edwards D. The effectiveness of the motor relearning program on upper limb function post-stroke: a systematized review. Phys. Ther. Rev. 29(1–3), 87–100 (2024).
Google Scholar
8.
Ghrouz A, Marco E, Muñoz-Redondo E, Boza R, Ramirez-Fuentes C, Duarte E. The effect of motor relearning on balance, mobility and performance of activities of daily living among post-stroke patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Eur. Stroke J. 7(1), 76–84 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A Motor Relearning Programme for Stroke (2nd edition ). Aspen Publishers, Inc, Oxford: MD, USA (1987).
Google Scholar
10.
Ghrouz A, Guillen-Sola A, Morgado-Perez A et al. The effect of a motor relearning on balance and postural control in patients after stroke: an open-label randomized controlled trial. European Stroke J. 9(2), 303–311 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Kanase SB. Effect of motor relearning programme and conventional training on functional mobility in post stroke patients. Ind. J. Public Health Res. Dev. 11(5), 496–501 (2020).
Google Scholar
12.
Hitha Sherin U, Prem Kumar BN. Effect of motor re-learning program with motor imagery on sit-to-stand activity in stroke. J. Rehab. Pain Med. 1(1), doi: (2022).
Google Scholar
13.
Alqahtani MM, Kashoo FZ, Ahmad F. Current scenario of evidence-based practice and rationale of preferred approach in stroke rehabilitation among physiotherapists in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional survey. Saudi J. Health Sci. 7(1), 53 (2018).
Google Scholar
14.
Alatawi SF. Current clinical practices of saudi physiotherapists in stroke rehabilitation. J. Acute Care Phys. Ther. 12(4), 194 (2021).
Google Scholar
15.
Esht V, Alshehri MM, Balasubramanian K et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for neurological disability among subacute stroke survivors to improve multiple domains in health-related quality of life: randomized controlled trial protocol. Neurophysiologie Clinique 54(3), 102976 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Conradsen I, Henriksen M, Rytter HM. Predictive validity of motor assessment scale on poststroke discharge destination. Rehab. Res. Pract. 2024(1), 2914252 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Zhou M, Liu X, Zha F et al. Stroke outcome assessment: optimizing cutoff scores for the Longshi Scale, modified rankin scale and Barthel Index. PLoS ONE 16(5), e0251103 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Appelros P, Nydevik I, Terént A. Living setting and utilisation of ADL assistance one year after a stroke with special reference to gender differences. Disabil. Rehabil. 28(1), 43–49 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Maier M, Ballester BR, Verschure PFMJ. Principles of neurorehabilitation after stroke based on motor learning and brain plasticity mechanisms. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 13, 74 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Ammann BC, Knols RH, Baschung P, de Bie RA, de Bruin ED. Application of principles of exercise training in sub-acute and chronic stroke survivors: a systematic review. BMC Neurol. 14, 167 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Hawley JA. Specificity of training adaptation: time for a rethink? J. Physiol. 586(Pt 1), 1–2 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Langhammer B, Stanghelle JK. Can physiotherapy after stroke based on the Bobath concept result in improved quality of movement compared to the motor relearning programme. Physiother. Res. Int. 16(2), 69–80 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Singha R. Motor relearning program versus proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation technique for improving basic mobility in chronic stroke patients-a comparative study. Int. J. Physiother. Res. 5, 2490–2500 (2017).
Google Scholar
24.
George Hornby T, Straube DS, Kinnaird CR et al. Importance of specificity, amount, and intensity of locomotor training to improve ambulatory function in patients poststroke. Topics Stroke Rehab. 18(4), 293–307 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Legg LA, Lewis SR, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Drummond A, Langhorne P. Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017(7), CD003585 (2017).
Google Scholar
26.
Wurzinger HE, Abzhandadze T, Rafsten L, Sunnerhagen KS. Dependency in activities of daily living during the first year after stroke. Front. Neurol. 12, 736684 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Bhalerao G, Kulkarni V, Doshi C, Rairikar S, Shyam A, Sancheti P. Comparison of motor relearning program versus bobath approach at every two weeks interval for improving activities of daily living and ambulation in acute stroke rehabilitation. Int. J. Sci. Basic App. Res. (IJSBAR) 3, 2277–210370 (2013).
Google Scholar
28.
Fisher BE, Sullivan KJ. Activity-dependent factors affecting poststroke functional outcomes. Topics Stroke Rehab. 8(3), 31–44 (2001).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Hsieh Y-W, Wang C-H, Wu S-C, Chen P-C, Sheu C-F, Hsieh C-L. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil. Neural. Repair 21(3), 233–238 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Shahid J, Kashif A, Shahid MK. A comprehensive review of physical therapy interventions for stroke rehabilitation: impairment-based approaches and functional goals. Brain Sci. 13(5), 717 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Todhunter-Brown A, Sellers CE, Baer GD et al. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2(2), CD001920 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Prange GB, Jannink MJA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 43(2), 171–184 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Eng JJ, Tang PF. Gait training strategies to optimize walking ability in people with stroke: a synthesis of the evidence. Expert Rev. Neurother. 7(10), 1417–1436 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Alqahtani MM, Kashoo FZ, Ahmad F. Current scenario of evidence-based practice and rationale of preferred approach in stroke rehabilitation among physiotherapists in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional survey. Saudi J. Health Sci. 7(1), 53–64 (2018)
Google Scholar
|