Perspectives on adherence to prescribed home exercises after polytrauma: A qualitative study.

IF 1 Q4 REHABILITATION
South African Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2025-06-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2163
Keamogetswe Monaiwa, Mariatha Yazbek, Nontembiso Magida
{"title":"Perspectives on adherence to prescribed home exercises after polytrauma: A qualitative study.","authors":"Keamogetswe Monaiwa, Mariatha Yazbek, Nontembiso Magida","doi":"10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polytrauma can be life altering, requiring a holistic approach to reach the highest functional level. Physiotherapists prescribe home exercise programmes (HEPs) to prevent complications associated with immobility. Adherence to HEPs is crucial, yet factors influencing non-adherence remain underexplored.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our study explored patients with polytrauma perspectives on adherence to prescribed HEPs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A qualitative exploratory, descriptive design was used to recruit participants purposively from a rehabilitation unit in Tshwane district, South Africa. Participants diagnosed with polytrauma, aged 18 years or older, and prescribed a HEP were included, while those with cognitive impairments or language barriers were excluded. Consent was obtained while hospitalised, and participants were contacted 3 months post-discharge for telephonic semistructured interviews lasting 30-45 min. Ethical clearance (reference number: 595/2022) and institutional permission were granted. Interviews were audio-recorded and conducted until data were saturated. Data were verbatim transcribed and analysed thematically to identify key themes and sub-themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen participants (8 male and 5 female participants) with a mean age of 43.77 (standard deviation = 10.45) were interviewed. The four major themes were physical, psycho-cognitive, social and environmental factors. Adherence barriers were more significant than facilitators. The most frequently reported facilitator was family support, whereas the most commonly reported barrier was pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Polytrauma patients identified more barriers than facilitators affecting HEP adherence. Pain significantly hindered adherence, while family support was a key enabler.</p><p><strong>Clinical implication: </strong>Physiotherapists should work collaboratively with patients to develop inclusive HEPs that consider their demographic, social, psychological, physical and environmental context.</p>","PeriodicalId":44180,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"81 1","pages":"2163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12224004/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Polytrauma can be life altering, requiring a holistic approach to reach the highest functional level. Physiotherapists prescribe home exercise programmes (HEPs) to prevent complications associated with immobility. Adherence to HEPs is crucial, yet factors influencing non-adherence remain underexplored.

Objectives: Our study explored patients with polytrauma perspectives on adherence to prescribed HEPs.

Method: A qualitative exploratory, descriptive design was used to recruit participants purposively from a rehabilitation unit in Tshwane district, South Africa. Participants diagnosed with polytrauma, aged 18 years or older, and prescribed a HEP were included, while those with cognitive impairments or language barriers were excluded. Consent was obtained while hospitalised, and participants were contacted 3 months post-discharge for telephonic semistructured interviews lasting 30-45 min. Ethical clearance (reference number: 595/2022) and institutional permission were granted. Interviews were audio-recorded and conducted until data were saturated. Data were verbatim transcribed and analysed thematically to identify key themes and sub-themes.

Results: Thirteen participants (8 male and 5 female participants) with a mean age of 43.77 (standard deviation = 10.45) were interviewed. The four major themes were physical, psycho-cognitive, social and environmental factors. Adherence barriers were more significant than facilitators. The most frequently reported facilitator was family support, whereas the most commonly reported barrier was pain.

Conclusion: Polytrauma patients identified more barriers than facilitators affecting HEP adherence. Pain significantly hindered adherence, while family support was a key enabler.

Clinical implication: Physiotherapists should work collaboratively with patients to develop inclusive HEPs that consider their demographic, social, psychological, physical and environmental context.

多创伤后坚持家庭运动的观点:一项定性研究。
背景:多重创伤可以改变生活,需要一个整体的方法来达到最高的功能水平。物理治疗师开出家庭运动方案(HEPs),以防止与不动相关的并发症。坚持HEPs至关重要,但影响不坚持的因素仍未得到充分探讨。目的:我们的研究探讨了多重创伤患者对hep处方依从性的看法。方法:采用定性探索性描述性设计,有目的地从南非Tshwane地区的一家康复单位招募参与者。被诊断为多发创伤,年龄在18岁或以上,并开了HEP的参与者被包括在内,而那些有认知障碍或语言障碍的参与者被排除在外。在住院期间获得同意,并在出院后3个月与参与者联系,进行30-45分钟的电话半结构化访谈。获得伦理许可(参考编号:595/2022)和机构许可。采访被录音并进行,直到数据饱和。数据被逐字抄录并按主题进行分析,以确定主要主题和分主题。结果:共访谈13人,男8人,女5人,平均年龄43.77岁(标准差10.45)。四个主要主题是身体、心理认知、社会和环境因素。依从障碍比促进因素更重要。最常见的促进因素是家庭支持,而最常见的障碍是疼痛。结论:多重创伤患者认为影响HEP依从性的障碍多于促进因素。疼痛严重阻碍了依从性,而家庭支持是关键的促成因素。临床意义:物理治疗师应与患者合作制定包容性的hep,考虑他们的人口统计学、社会、心理、身体和环境背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信