Cargando…

Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE: To explore how physiotherapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) perceive upper limb (UL) prediction algorithms in a stroke rehabilitation setting and identify potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. SETTING: The study t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lundquist, Camilla Biering, Pallesen, Hanne, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine, Brunner, Iris Charlotte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8031067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33827826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038880
_version_ 1783676138672881664
author Lundquist, Camilla Biering
Pallesen, Hanne
Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine
Brunner, Iris Charlotte
author_facet Lundquist, Camilla Biering
Pallesen, Hanne
Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine
Brunner, Iris Charlotte
author_sort Lundquist, Camilla Biering
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore how physiotherapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) perceive upper limb (UL) prediction algorithms in a stroke rehabilitation setting and identify potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. SETTING: The study took place at a neurorehabilitation centre. PARTICIPANTS: Three to six PTs and OTs. METHODS: We conducted four focus group interviews in order to explore therapists’ perceptions of UL prediction algorithms, in particular the Predict Recovery Potential algorithm (PREP2). The Consolidated Framework for advancing Implementation Research was used to develop the interview guide. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis. Meaning units were identified and subthemes formed. Information gained from all interviews was synthesised, and four main themes emerged. RESULTS: The four main themes were current practice, perceived benefits, barriers and preconditions for implementation. The participants knew of UL prediction algorithms. However, only a few had a profound knowledge and few were using the Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension test, a core component of the PREP2 algorithm, in their current practice. PREP2 was considered a potentially helpful tool when planning treatment and setting goals. A main barrier was concern about the accuracy of the algorithm. Furthermore, participants dreaded potential dilemmas arising from having to confront the patients with their prognosis. Preconditions for implementation included tailoring the implementation to a specific unit, sufficient time for acquiring new skills and an organisation supporting implementation. CONCLUSION: In the present study, experienced neurological therapists were sceptical towards prediction algorithms due to the lack of precision of the algorithms and concerns about ethical dilemmas. However, the PREP2 algorithm was regarded as potentially useful.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8031067
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80310672021-04-27 Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study Lundquist, Camilla Biering Pallesen, Hanne Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine Brunner, Iris Charlotte BMJ Open Qualitative Research OBJECTIVE: To explore how physiotherapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) perceive upper limb (UL) prediction algorithms in a stroke rehabilitation setting and identify potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. SETTING: The study took place at a neurorehabilitation centre. PARTICIPANTS: Three to six PTs and OTs. METHODS: We conducted four focus group interviews in order to explore therapists’ perceptions of UL prediction algorithms, in particular the Predict Recovery Potential algorithm (PREP2). The Consolidated Framework for advancing Implementation Research was used to develop the interview guide. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis. Meaning units were identified and subthemes formed. Information gained from all interviews was synthesised, and four main themes emerged. RESULTS: The four main themes were current practice, perceived benefits, barriers and preconditions for implementation. The participants knew of UL prediction algorithms. However, only a few had a profound knowledge and few were using the Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension test, a core component of the PREP2 algorithm, in their current practice. PREP2 was considered a potentially helpful tool when planning treatment and setting goals. A main barrier was concern about the accuracy of the algorithm. Furthermore, participants dreaded potential dilemmas arising from having to confront the patients with their prognosis. Preconditions for implementation included tailoring the implementation to a specific unit, sufficient time for acquiring new skills and an organisation supporting implementation. CONCLUSION: In the present study, experienced neurological therapists were sceptical towards prediction algorithms due to the lack of precision of the algorithms and concerns about ethical dilemmas. However, the PREP2 algorithm was regarded as potentially useful. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8031067/ /pubmed/33827826 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038880 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Qualitative Research
Lundquist, Camilla Biering
Pallesen, Hanne
Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Tine
Brunner, Iris Charlotte
Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title_full Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title_short Exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
title_sort exploring physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm prep2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
topic Qualitative Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8031067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33827826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038880
work_keys_str_mv AT lundquistcamillabiering exploringphysiotherapistsandoccupationaltherapistsperceptionsoftheupperlimbpredictionalgorithmprep2afterstrokeinarehabilitationsettingaqualitativestudy
AT pallesenhanne exploringphysiotherapistsandoccupationaltherapistsperceptionsoftheupperlimbpredictionalgorithmprep2afterstrokeinarehabilitationsettingaqualitativestudy
AT tjørnhøjthomsentine exploringphysiotherapistsandoccupationaltherapistsperceptionsoftheupperlimbpredictionalgorithmprep2afterstrokeinarehabilitationsettingaqualitativestudy
AT brunneririscharlotte exploringphysiotherapistsandoccupationaltherapistsperceptionsoftheupperlimbpredictionalgorithmprep2afterstrokeinarehabilitationsettingaqualitativestudy