This may be a little late to reply, but the immediate answer that pops into my mind is that it isn't only the patient outcome that matters, but the cost in man-power, wear and tear on the therapist and safety of all that makes it worthwhile. If I can help a patient to get up and walking sooner, without hurting myself in the process, or requiring as many extra hands to accomplish it safely, it has been worthwhile and more cost-effective.
The Leaps trial had the highest expenditure of any stroke recovery and rehabilitation study ever funded by the NIH. There are many clinicians who read various media accounts and came to the conclusion that the LEAPS trail was a "negative" trial. That is, partial weight supported walking (LT) did not work. In fact LT did work, but not better than physical therapy at home.
For many in PT the question is, why mess with the equipment, extra set up time and extra therapist training needed if outcomes are similar to standard care?
I know therapists who are in a quandary because they encouraged their facility to purchase BWS systems and their facilities are now demanding justification for the purchase. What would you say to those therapists and those facilities?
