Translation of evidence-based Assistive Technologies into stroke rehabilitation: users' perceptions of the barriers and opportunities

Ann-Marie Hughes, Jane Helena Burridge, Sara Holtum Demain, Caroline Ellis-Hill, Claire Meagher, Lisa Tedesco-Triccas, Ruth Turk, Ian Swain, Ann-Marie Hughes, Jane Helena Burridge, Sara Holtum Demain, Caroline Ellis-Hill, Claire Meagher, Lisa Tedesco-Triccas, Ruth Turk, Ian Swain

Abstract

Background: Assistive Technologies (ATs), defined as "electrical or mechanical devices designed to help people recover movement", demonstrate clinical benefits in upper limb stroke rehabilitation; however translation into clinical practice is poor. Uptake is dependent on a complex relationship between all stakeholders. Our aim was to understand patients', carers' (P&Cs) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experience and views of upper limb rehabilitation and ATs, to identify barriers and opportunities critical to the effective translation of ATs into clinical practice. This work was conducted in the UK, which has a state funded healthcare system, but the findings have relevance to all healthcare systems.

Methods: Two structurally comparable questionnaires, one for P&Cs and one for HCPs, were designed, piloted and completed anonymously. Wide distribution of the questionnaires provided data from HCPs with experience of stroke rehabilitation and P&Cs who had experience of stroke. Questionnaires were designed based on themes identified from four focus groups held with HCPs and P&Cs and piloted with a sample of HCPs (N = 24) and P&Cs (N = 8). Eight of whom (four HCPs and four P&Cs) had been involved in the development.

Results: 292 HCPs and 123 P&Cs questionnaires were analysed. 120 (41%) of HCP and 79 (64%) of P&C respondents had never used ATs. Most views were common to both groups, citing lack of information and access to ATs as the main reasons for not using them. Both HCPs (N = 53 [34%]) and P&C (N = 21 [47%]) cited Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) as the most frequently used AT. Research evidence was rated by HCPs as the most important factor in the design of an ideal technology, yet ATs they used or prescribed were not supported by research evidence. P&Cs rated ease of set-up and comfort more highly.

Conclusion: Key barriers to translation of ATs into clinical practice are lack of knowledge, education, awareness and access. Perceptions about arm rehabilitation post-stroke are similar between HCPs and P&Cs. Based on our findings, improvements in AT design, pragmatic clinical evaluation, better knowledge and awareness and improvement in provision of services will contribute to better and cost-effective upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Responses to the question ‘which of the following ATs have you ever used (or prescribed)’? (a) HCPs (b) P&Cs.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Responses to the question ‘which AT do you use (or prescribe) most frequently? (a) HCPs (b) P&Cs.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Perceptions about current upper limb therapy and the use of ATs (a) HCPs (b) P&Cs.

References

    1. Hong KS, Saver JL. Quantifying the value of stroke disability outcomes: WHO global burden of disease project disability weights for each level of the modified rankin scale * supplemental mathematical appendix. Stroke. 2009;14(12):3828–3833. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.561365.
    1. Saka O, McGuire A, Wolfe C. Cost of stroke in the United Kingdom. Age Ageing. 2009;14(38(1)):27–32.
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke Survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;14(7):1480–1484. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.
    1. Truelsena T, Ekmanb M, Boysen G. Cost of stroke in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2005;14(Suppl 1):78–84.
    1. Department of Health. National Stroke Strategy. 2007. Report No.: DH_081062.
    1. Forster A, Young J. The Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Physiotherapy in the Management of Elderly People Following a Stroke. London: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy; 2002.
    1. Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R, Wood VA, Skilbeck CE, Ismail HM. The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983;14(6):521–524. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.46.6.521.
    1. Royal College of Physicians National clinical guidelines for stroke. Prepared by the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. 4. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2012.
    1. Stroke Association. Stroke Statistics Fact Sheet. London: Stroke Association; 2010.
    1. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. CSP Research Priorities Project. London: CSP London; 2010.
    1. Boddice G, Brauer S, Gustafsson L, Kenardy J, Hoffmann T, National Stroke Foundation. Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management 2010. Melbourne, Australia: National Stroke Foundation; 2010. ISSBN0-978-0-9805933-3-4)
    1. US VA/DOD The Management of stroke rehabilitationWorking Group. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Version 2.0. 2010.
    1. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke: a research synthesis. Stroke. 1997;14(8):1550–1556. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.28.8.1550.
    1. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bonato P, Boninger ML, Chan L, Cowan RE, Fregly BJ, Rodgers MM. Major trends in mobility technology research and development: overview of the results of the NSF-WTEC European study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;14:22. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-22. .
    1. Cramer SC, Nelles G, Benson RR, Kaplan JD, Parker RA, Kwong KK, Kennedy DN, Finklestein SP, Rosen BR. A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 1997;14(12):2518–2527. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.28.12.2518.
    1. Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol. 2005;14(4):384–395. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-923533.
    1. Mehrholz J, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and Robot-Assisted arm Training for Improving arm Function and Activities of Daily Living After Stroke. Art. No.: CD006876. Ltd Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
    1. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;14(8):741–754. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4.
    1. Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy for Upper Extremities in Stroke Patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 4. 2009. Art. No.: CD004433. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004433.pub2.4.
    1. Saposnik G, Levin M. for the Stroke Outcome Research Canada (SORCan) Working Group. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke. 2011;14(42(5)):1380–1386.
    1. Kwakkel G, Meskers CGM, van Wegen EE, Lankhorst GJ, Geurts ACH, van Kuijk AA, Lindeman E, Visser-Meily A, de Vlugt E, Arendzen JH. Impact of early applied upper limb stimulation: the EXPLICIT-stroke programme design. BMC Neurol. 2008;14:49. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-8-49.
    1. Page SJ, Levine P. Back from the brink: electromyography-triggered stimulation combined with modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;14(1):27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.307.
    1. Sun SF, Hsu CW, Sun HP, Hwang CW, Yang CL, Wang JL. Combined botulinum toxin type a with modified constraint-induced movement therapy for chronic stroke patients with upper extremity spasticity: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;14(1):34–41. doi: 10.1177/1545968309341060.
    1. Broeren J, Rydmark M, Bj + Ârkdahl A, Sunnerhagen KS. Assessment and training in a 3-dimensional virtual environment with haptics: a report on 5 cases of motor rehabilitation in the chronic stage after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;14(2):180–189. doi: 10.1177/1545968306290774.
    1. Hesse S, Werner C, Schonhardt EM, Bardeleben A, Jenrich W, Kirker SG. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: a pilot study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;14:9–15.
    1. Malcolm MP, Triggs WJ, Light KE, Gonzalez Rothi LJ, Wu S, Reid K, Nadeau SE. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an adjunct to constraint-induced therapy: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;14:707–715. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31813e0de0.
    1. Demain SH, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, Hughes AM, Yardley L, Swain I. Assistive Technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;14:334. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-334.
    1. Pomeroy VM, King L, Pollock A, Baily-Hallam A, Langhorne P. Electrostimulation for Promoting Recovery of Movement or Functional Ability After Stroke. Art. No.: CD003241 2006.
    1. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;14:1312–1315. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312.
    1. Boynton PM. Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;14:1372–1375. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7452.1372.
    1. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;14:1183. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183.
    1. Hughes AM. Research into using technologies in stroke rehabilitation – Volunteers Wanted. Differ Strokes Newslett. 2010.
    1. Cheeran B, Cohen L, Dobkin B, Ford G, Greenwood R, Howard D, Husain M, Macleod M, Nudo R, Rothwell J, Rudd A, Teo J, Ward N, Wolf S. The future of restorative neurosciences in stroke: driving the translational research pipeline from basic science to rehabilitation of people after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;14(2):97–107.
    1. Burridge JH, Hughes AM. Potential for new technologies in clinical practice. Curr Opin Neurol. 2010;14:671–677. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283402af5.
    1. Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal RS, Bayona N, Jutai J, Speechley M. Evidence based review of stroke rehabilitation. 2013. Available at: .
    1. Cook AM, Polgar JM, Livingston NJ. In: Design and Use of Assistive Technologies: Social, Technical, Ethics and Economic Challenges. Oishi MNK Mitchell IIM, Van der Loos HFM, editor. New York, New York, Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer; 2010. Need- and task-based design and evaluation; pp. 41–47.
    1. Wagner TH, Lo AC, Peduzzi P, Bravata DM, Huang GD, Krebs HI, Ringer RJ, Federman DG, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Volpe BT, Bever CT, Duncan PW, Siroka A, Guarino PD. An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. Stroke. 2011;14(9):2630–2632. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.606442.
    1. Renaud K, van Biljon J. Proceedings of SAICSIT. Wilderness, South Africa: Wilderness Beach Hotel; 2008. Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study.
    1. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;14(3):319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.
    1. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR. Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Hum Relat. 1992;14(7):660–686.
    1. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res. 2000;14(4):342–365. doi: 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
    1. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;14(3):425–478.
    1. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;14(2):273–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press; 2003.
    1. Silverstone R, Haddon L. Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford University: Oxford; 1996. Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life; pp. 44–74.
    1. May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;14:86. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-86.
    1. Pollock AS, Legg L, Langhorne P, Sellars C. Barriers to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(6):611–617. doi: 10.1191/0269215500cr369oa.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi