Bobath:– an interpretational dilemma for physiotherapists in neurological rehabilitation: a literature review

Abstract

Background/aim: The relevance of Langhammer and Stanghelle´s definition of the Bobath method has been debated. This criticism has inspired to study different interpretations of the Bobath method/concept. Method: A literature search was made in MEDLINE and BIBSYS, and a manual search was made in books and relevant articles on the same keywords: definition and Bobath method/concept. Results: Six different interpretations of the Bobath method were found: 1) Bobath´s own interpretation, 2) Langhammer and Stanghelle´s interpretation, 3) Lennon´s interpretation after research among Bobath therapists, 4) Raine´s description in collaboration with Bobath instructors, 5) Hæstad and Gjelsvik´s presentation, and 6) Gjelsvik and IBITAs description of the same method. Three of these descriptions (Raine, Hæstad and Gjelsvik and Gjelsvik and IBITA) differ from the original description of the Bobath method and Langhammer and Stanghelle´s description of the same. The difference between these three authors and Langhammer and Stanghelle’s/Bobath’s definition lies in the theoretical explanatory model; reflex-hierarchical versus system approach. The principles of treatment are described similar by all authors; specific sensoric stimulation, facilitation of selective movement, handling, inhibition of spasticity, controlling/inhibiting associated reactions and stereotypical movements. Conclusion: According to the present study, there are no major differences between the definitions of the Bobath method by Bobath herself and Langhammer and Stanghelle´s definition. Thus, the method used in the study of Langhammer and Stanghelle seems to be in compliance with the original Bobath method.

Keywords

• Concept Formation
• Bobath method
• Physical Therapy Modalities
• Rehabilitation
• Stroke