Walker, D. M., Fletcher-Smith, J., Sprigg, N. and Pandyan, A, 2022. Designing a trial of early electrical stimulation to the stroke-affected arm: Qualitative findings on the barriers and facilitators. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85 (3), 181-186.
Full text available as:
|
PDF (OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE)
walker-et-al-2021-designing-a-trial-of-early-electrical-stimulation-to-the-stroke-affected-arm-qualitative-findings-on.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. 576kB | |
Copyright to original material in this document is with the original owner(s). Access to this content through BURO is granted on condition that you use it only for research, scholarly or other non-commercial purposes. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must contact BU via BURO@bournemouth.ac.uk. Any third party copyright material in this document remains the property of its respective owner(s). BU grants no licence for further use of that third party material. |
DOI: 10.1177/03080226211008706
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing early therapeutic electrical stimulation (ES) treatment from both the patient and therapist perspectives as part of a feasibility study. Methods: Design: Interviews were conducted with patients and their carers and focus groups with the therapists post-intervention period. Setting: Interviews were in the patient’s homes and for the focus groups in a specialist stroke unit in Nottinghamshire. Subjects: Fifteen patient participants (34% of sample) were interviewed (intervention n = 9; control group n = 3; carers n = 3). Sixteen therapists (9 occupational therapists; 7 physiotherapists) took part in the three focus groups. Intervention: Participants were randomized to receive usual care or usual care and ES to wrist flexors and extensors for 30 min, twice a day, 5 days a week for 3 months. Findings: The barriers to ES treatment cited by the therapists outweighed the barriers mentioned by patients. Therapists’ barriers included lack of confidence and staff knowledge regarding ES and time pressures of delivering the ES. No patients mentioned time as a barrier and considered the treatment regime to be acceptable; however, lack of staff support was mentioned 14 times by them. Conclusion: Although initially the perceived barrier for therapists was time restrictions, after analysing the data, it appears that confidence/knowledge is the real barrier, and time is the manifestation of this underlying self-doubt. Patients were able to confidently self-manage treatment, and although efficacy was not measured, patients volunteered information regarding its perceived benefit, and no adverse effects were reported.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0308-0226 |
Uncontrolled Keywords: | Electrical stimulation; stroke; rehabilitation; qualitative; trial design |
Group: | Faculty of Health & Social Sciences |
ID Code: | 39251 |
Deposited By: | Symplectic RT2 |
Deposited On: | 11 Dec 2023 14:53 |
Last Modified: | 11 Dec 2023 14:53 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Repository Staff Only - |