Cargando…

A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology

BACKGROUND: Neurorehabilitation engineering faces numerous challenges to translating new technologies, but it is unclear which of these challenges are most limiting. Our aim is to improve understanding of rehabilitation therapists’ real-time decision-making processes on the use of rehabilitation tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Celian, Courtney, Swanson, Veronica, Shah, Maahi, Newman, Caitlin, Fowler-King, Bridget, Gallik, Sarah, Reilly, Kaitlin, Reinkensmeyer, David J., Patton, James, Rafferty, Miriam R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8317366/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34321036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00911-6
_version_ 1783730056499036160
author Celian, Courtney
Swanson, Veronica
Shah, Maahi
Newman, Caitlin
Fowler-King, Bridget
Gallik, Sarah
Reilly, Kaitlin
Reinkensmeyer, David J.
Patton, James
Rafferty, Miriam R.
author_facet Celian, Courtney
Swanson, Veronica
Shah, Maahi
Newman, Caitlin
Fowler-King, Bridget
Gallik, Sarah
Reilly, Kaitlin
Reinkensmeyer, David J.
Patton, James
Rafferty, Miriam R.
author_sort Celian, Courtney
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Neurorehabilitation engineering faces numerous challenges to translating new technologies, but it is unclear which of these challenges are most limiting. Our aim is to improve understanding of rehabilitation therapists’ real-time decision-making processes on the use of rehabilitation technology (RT) in clinical treatment. METHODS: We used a phenomenological qualitative approach, in which three OTs and two PTs employed at a major, technology-encouraging rehabilitation hospital wrote vignettes from a written prompt describing their RT use decisions during treatment sessions with nine patients (4 with stroke, 2 traumatic brain injury, 1 spinal cord injury, 1 with multiple sclerosis). We then coded the vignettes using deductive qualitative analysis from 17 constructs derived from the RT literature and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were synthesized using summative content analysis. RESULTS: Of the constructs recorded, the five most prominent are from CFIR determinants of: (i) relative advantage, (ii) personal attributes of the patients, (iii) clinician knowledge and beliefs of the device/intervention, (iv) complexity of the devices including time and setup, and (v) organizational readiness to implement. Therapists characterized candidate RT as having a relative disadvantage compared to conventional treatment due to lack of relevance to functional training. RT design also often failed to consider the multi-faceted personal attributes of the patients, including diagnoses, goals, and physical and cognitive limitations. Clinicians’ comfort with RT was increased by their previous training but was decreased by the perceived complexity of RT. Finally, therapists have limited time to gather, setup, and use RT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite decades of design work aimed at creating clinically useful RT, many lack compatibility with clinical translation needs in inpatient neurologic rehabilitation. New RT continue to impede the immediacy, versatility, and functionality of hands-on therapy mediated treatment with simple everyday objects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8317366
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83173662021-07-28 A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology Celian, Courtney Swanson, Veronica Shah, Maahi Newman, Caitlin Fowler-King, Bridget Gallik, Sarah Reilly, Kaitlin Reinkensmeyer, David J. Patton, James Rafferty, Miriam R. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Neurorehabilitation engineering faces numerous challenges to translating new technologies, but it is unclear which of these challenges are most limiting. Our aim is to improve understanding of rehabilitation therapists’ real-time decision-making processes on the use of rehabilitation technology (RT) in clinical treatment. METHODS: We used a phenomenological qualitative approach, in which three OTs and two PTs employed at a major, technology-encouraging rehabilitation hospital wrote vignettes from a written prompt describing their RT use decisions during treatment sessions with nine patients (4 with stroke, 2 traumatic brain injury, 1 spinal cord injury, 1 with multiple sclerosis). We then coded the vignettes using deductive qualitative analysis from 17 constructs derived from the RT literature and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were synthesized using summative content analysis. RESULTS: Of the constructs recorded, the five most prominent are from CFIR determinants of: (i) relative advantage, (ii) personal attributes of the patients, (iii) clinician knowledge and beliefs of the device/intervention, (iv) complexity of the devices including time and setup, and (v) organizational readiness to implement. Therapists characterized candidate RT as having a relative disadvantage compared to conventional treatment due to lack of relevance to functional training. RT design also often failed to consider the multi-faceted personal attributes of the patients, including diagnoses, goals, and physical and cognitive limitations. Clinicians’ comfort with RT was increased by their previous training but was decreased by the perceived complexity of RT. Finally, therapists have limited time to gather, setup, and use RT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite decades of design work aimed at creating clinically useful RT, many lack compatibility with clinical translation needs in inpatient neurologic rehabilitation. New RT continue to impede the immediacy, versatility, and functionality of hands-on therapy mediated treatment with simple everyday objects. BioMed Central 2021-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8317366/ /pubmed/34321036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00911-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Celian, Courtney
Swanson, Veronica
Shah, Maahi
Newman, Caitlin
Fowler-King, Bridget
Gallik, Sarah
Reilly, Kaitlin
Reinkensmeyer, David J.
Patton, James
Rafferty, Miriam R.
A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title_full A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title_fullStr A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title_full_unstemmed A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title_short A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
title_sort day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8317366/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34321036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00911-6
work_keys_str_mv AT celiancourtney adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT swansonveronica adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT shahmaahi adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT newmancaitlin adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT fowlerkingbridget adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT galliksarah adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT reillykaitlin adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT reinkensmeyerdavidj adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT pattonjames adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT raffertymiriamr adayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT celiancourtney dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT swansonveronica dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT shahmaahi dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT newmancaitlin dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT fowlerkingbridget dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT galliksarah dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT reillykaitlin dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT reinkensmeyerdavidj dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT pattonjames dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology
AT raffertymiriamr dayinthelifeaqualitativestudyofclinicaldecisionmakinganduptakeofneurorehabilitationtechnology