Perceived barriers and facilitators to high-intensity gait training in stroke rehabilitation: A Delphi study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-25 DOI:10.1177/02692155251371429
Annie Tapp, David Griswold, Jennifer Bent, Susan Linder
{"title":"Perceived barriers and facilitators to high-intensity gait training in stroke rehabilitation: A Delphi study.","authors":"Annie Tapp, David Griswold, Jennifer Bent, Susan Linder","doi":"10.1177/02692155251371429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo identify common barriers and facilitators among physical therapists to implementing high-intensity gait training for patients post-stroke during inpatient rehabilitation.DesignA three-round Delphi study using free text responses and five-point Likert scales for agreement.Participants60 physical therapists with expertise treating patients with stroke in inpatient rehabilitation were invited. 33 participants completed all three rounds of surveys.Main MeasuresRound 1 consisted of two free text questions. Qualitative responses from round one were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework and used to generate Likert scale survey items for rounds two and three. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement. Response stability was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsAnalysis identified 24 themes (12 facilitators, 12 barriers). Seven facilitators reached consensus: access to equipment (84.9%), built environment (78.8%), administrative support (78.8%), peer support (75.8%), team commitment to evidence-based practice (75.8%), high-intensity gait training-specific training (75.8%), and observable patient improvement (75.8%). Only one barrier reached consensus: treatment time interruptions (97.9%), including delays from toileting, hygiene, and medication administration. Other themes ranged from 18.2% to 57.6% agreement. No significant change in responses was found between rounds (p > 0.05).ConclusionsMore facilitators than barriers reached consensus, with treatment time interruptions as the primary agreed-upon barrier. Despite knowledge of high-intensity gait training and supportive factors, fewer than half of participants reported daily use. Targeted implementation strategies addressing time and workflow disruptions are needed to increase high-intensity gait training adoption in inpatient rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1390-1401"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251371429","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify common barriers and facilitators among physical therapists to implementing high-intensity gait training for patients post-stroke during inpatient rehabilitation.DesignA three-round Delphi study using free text responses and five-point Likert scales for agreement.Participants60 physical therapists with expertise treating patients with stroke in inpatient rehabilitation were invited. 33 participants completed all three rounds of surveys.Main MeasuresRound 1 consisted of two free text questions. Qualitative responses from round one were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework and used to generate Likert scale survey items for rounds two and three. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement. Response stability was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsAnalysis identified 24 themes (12 facilitators, 12 barriers). Seven facilitators reached consensus: access to equipment (84.9%), built environment (78.8%), administrative support (78.8%), peer support (75.8%), team commitment to evidence-based practice (75.8%), high-intensity gait training-specific training (75.8%), and observable patient improvement (75.8%). Only one barrier reached consensus: treatment time interruptions (97.9%), including delays from toileting, hygiene, and medication administration. Other themes ranged from 18.2% to 57.6% agreement. No significant change in responses was found between rounds (p > 0.05).ConclusionsMore facilitators than barriers reached consensus, with treatment time interruptions as the primary agreed-upon barrier. Despite knowledge of high-intensity gait training and supportive factors, fewer than half of participants reported daily use. Targeted implementation strategies addressing time and workflow disruptions are needed to increase high-intensity gait training adoption in inpatient rehabilitation.

脑卒中康复中高强度步态训练的感知障碍和促进因素:德尔菲研究。
目的探讨物理治疗师在脑卒中患者住院康复期间实施高强度步态训练的常见障碍和促进因素。设计一个三轮德尔菲研究,使用自由文本回答和五点李克特量表来衡量一致性。本研究邀请了60名具有卒中住院康复治疗经验的物理治疗师。33名参与者完成了所有三轮调查。第一轮包括两个自由文本问题。第一轮的定性回答使用理论领域框架进行编码,并用于生成第二轮和第三轮的李克特量表调查项目。共识被先验地定义为≥75%的一致性。采用Wilcoxon秩和检验评价反应稳定性。结果分析确定了24个主题(12个促进因素,12个障碍)。7位促进者达成共识:获得设备(84.9%)、建筑环境(78.8%)、行政支持(78.8%)、同伴支持(75.8%)、团队对循证实践的承诺(75.8%)、高强度步态训练(75.8%)和可观察到的患者改善(75.8%)。只有一个障碍达成了共识:治疗时间中断(97.9%),包括如厕、卫生和给药造成的延误。其他主题的同意度从18.2%到57.6%不等。两轮之间的应答无显著变化(p < 0.05)。结论促进者多于障碍者,治疗时间中断是主要的障碍。尽管知道高强度的步态训练和支持因素,只有不到一半的参与者报告每天使用。需要有针对性的实施策略来解决时间和工作流程中断问题,以增加住院康复中高强度步态训练的采用。
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
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
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