Which intervention has strong evidence for its efficacy in stroke patients?

The choice of constraint-induced therapy for subacute and chronic stroke patients with some hand movement is supported by a significant body of research demonstrating its effectiveness. This intervention focuses on intensively training the affected limb while constraining the unaffected limb. The goal is to promote neuroplasticity, encourage motor learning, and improve functional outcomes.

Evidence suggests that implementing this therapy during the subacute to chronic phases of recovery can lead to gains in motor function and increased use of the affected arm in daily activities. This is particularly impactful considering the challenges stroke survivors face in regaining function and independence. The intervention enhances the neural pathways associated with movement and has shown beneficial results in enhancing the quality of life for many stroke patients.

In contrast, while the other options may have their merits, they do not have the same level of robust evidence supporting their widespread clinical application for the prescribed population. For example, the use of splinting to prevent contractures, although beneficial in some cases, is not as definitively supported by rigorous clinical trials as constraint-induced therapy. Therefore, constraint-induced therapy stands out as the most evidence-backed option for its efficacy in facilitating recovery and function in stroke patients.