背景：限制－誘導治療（以下簡稱CIMT）是訓練中風病人上肢功能極有潛力的治療。雖然國際上熱衷於CIMT的研究，但台灣地區仍鮮見和CIMT相關之研究報告。本研究目的為評估台灣地區治療師對CIMT的意見。我們也比較在醫學中心或地區與區域醫院及診所工作之治療師的意見，以評估CIMT在台灣臨床應用的可行性。方法：我們在2004年11月時由治療師資料庫中隨機選擇600位物理及職能治療師，寄出問卷並附上回郵信封。在問卷中先描述CIMT的基本特性，治療師接著回答各項問題並提供他們對CIMT的看法。結果：共有468位治療師寄回問卷（反應率78%），其中358份為有效問卷（有效反應率59.7%）。許多治療師關心病人是否能遵從醫囑及其安全問題。約60.9%治療師認為他們的機構可能沒有足夠的資源可提供CIMT。絕大多數(93.3%)治療師認為CIMT的執行比傳統復健治療困難。比較在醫學中心或醫院及診所工作之治療師的意見，兩者在大部分問卷項目皆無顯著差異，但明顯地有較多在醫院及診所工作之治療師認為，執行CIMT前治療師應先接受專業訓練。結論：這是台灣地區首次對治療師所進行有關CIMT的問卷調查，其結果可做為未來台灣地區研究及施行CIMT的重要參考。CIMT的執行存在許多困難，台灣地區治療師對CIMT的實用性仍持懷疑態度。雖然目前臨床可實行性偏低，但許多提出的建議替代方法很值得後續研究及評估。

Objective: Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a promising intervention for retraining upper extremity function poststroke. Though the results from the application of CIMT were encouraging internationally, there were very few CIMT-related researches reported in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate therapists' opinions of CIMT in Taiwan. We also compared opinions from therapists working in medical centers versus local hospitals or clinics to evaluate the practicability of its clinical application. Methods: A self-report questionnaire was sent with a return envelope to 600 physical and occupational therapists selected randomly from a database of therapist association in November 2004. The basic features of CIMT were described in the questionnaire, therapists then responded to various statements concerning their opinions on CIMT and supplied rationale for their opinions. Results: A total of 468 therapists responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 78%. There were 358 valid responses (usable response rate 59.7%). Many therapists cited concerns about patient adherence and safety. Approximately 60.9% of the therapists speculated that their facilities might not have available resources to provide CIMT. Most (93.3%) therapists thought that CIMT would be "very difficult", "difficult" or "somewhat difficult" to administer compared with traditional rehabilitation therapies. Comparing the opinions from therapists working in medical centers versus local hospitals or clinics, no differenence in most questionnaire items was noted except that significantly more therapists working in local hospitals or clinics thought that they needed professional training before administrating CIMT. Conclusions: This is the first report that surveyed therapists' opinions about CIMT in Taiwan. These data might provide a valuable reference for subsequent CIMT-related study. Barriers to CIMT administration exist and therapists still hold skeptical views about the utility of CIMT in Taiwan. Despite of its low clinical practicability, several suggestions for CIMT were provided that deserves further evaluation.