Knowledge, Use, and Barriers to Electrical Stimulation in Upper Limb Stroke Therapy Among German Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

IF 3.7 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
Neural Plasticity Pub Date : 2025-09-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/np/4697720
Sarah Tenberg, Lutz Vogt, Steffen Müller, Daniel Niederer
{"title":"Knowledge, Use, and Barriers to Electrical Stimulation in Upper Limb Stroke Therapy Among German Therapists: A Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Sarah Tenberg, Lutz Vogt, Steffen Müller, Daniel Niederer","doi":"10.1155/np/4697720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is an effective therapeutic method for improving upper limb motor function after stroke, yet its usage among occupational and physical therapists in Germany remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to investigate the knowledge of, frequency of use, and barriers to electrical stimulation use in stroke rehabilitation. <b>Methods:</b> An online survey was conducted among German occupational and physical therapists working with stroke patients. Data were analyzed for frequency distributions, and associations between electrical stimulation usage and individual/organizational factors were assessed using Chi-Square or Fisher's exact tests. <b>Results:</b> A total of <i>n</i> = 111 participants completed the survey (57 occupational and 54 physical therapists). Almost half (45%) reported regular electrical stimulation use, with 57% wanting to increase it. Use was higher among therapists with additional training (85% vs. 44%, <i>p</i>=0.041), belief in electrical stimulation effectiveness during acute (87% vs. 59%, <i>p</i>=0.041) and early subacute stages (81% vs. 47%, <i>p</i>=0.027), sufficient time (78% vs. 60%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and device access (80% vs. 44%, <i>p</i>=0.006). Therapists with over 10 years of experience used electrical stimulation less frequently (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although electrical stimulation shows promise in rehabilitation, further research is needed to assess the resources-such as time, equipment, and therapist training-required for its effective integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":19122,"journal":{"name":"Neural Plasticity","volume":"2025 ","pages":"4697720"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12488299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neural Plasticity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/np/4697720","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is an effective therapeutic method for improving upper limb motor function after stroke, yet its usage among occupational and physical therapists in Germany remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to investigate the knowledge of, frequency of use, and barriers to electrical stimulation use in stroke rehabilitation. Methods: An online survey was conducted among German occupational and physical therapists working with stroke patients. Data were analyzed for frequency distributions, and associations between electrical stimulation usage and individual/organizational factors were assessed using Chi-Square or Fisher's exact tests. Results: A total of n = 111 participants completed the survey (57 occupational and 54 physical therapists). Almost half (45%) reported regular electrical stimulation use, with 57% wanting to increase it. Use was higher among therapists with additional training (85% vs. 44%, p=0.041), belief in electrical stimulation effectiveness during acute (87% vs. 59%, p=0.041) and early subacute stages (81% vs. 47%, p=0.027), sufficient time (78% vs. 60%, p < 0.001), and device access (80% vs. 44%, p=0.006). Therapists with over 10 years of experience used electrical stimulation less frequently (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although electrical stimulation shows promise in rehabilitation, further research is needed to assess the resources-such as time, equipment, and therapist training-required for its effective integration.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

德国治疗师上肢卒中治疗中电刺激的知识、使用和障碍:一项横断面调查。
背景和目的:功能性电刺激(FES)是一种改善中风后上肢运动功能的有效治疗方法,但在德国的职业和物理治疗师中其使用情况仍不确定。本研究的目的是调查脑卒中康复中使用电刺激的知识、频率和障碍。方法:对德国中风患者的职业和物理治疗师进行在线调查。分析数据的频率分布,并使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验评估电刺激使用与个人/组织因素之间的关联。结果:共有111名参与者完成了调查(57名职业治疗师和54名物理治疗师)。近一半(45%)的人报告定期使用电刺激,57%的人希望增加电刺激。在接受过额外培训的治疗师中(85%对44%,p=0.041),在急性期(87%对59%,p=0.041)和早期亚急性期(81%对47%,p=0.027),足够的时间(78%对60%,p < 0.001)和设备使用(80%对44%,p=0.006),使用电刺激的效果更高。具有10年以上经验的治疗师使用电刺激的频率较低(p < 0.001)。结论:虽然电刺激在康复中显示出希望,但需要进一步的研究来评估其有效整合所需的资源,如时间、设备和治疗师培训。
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
Neural Plasticity
Neural Plasticity Neuroscience-Neurology
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Neural Plasticity is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of articles related to all aspects of neural plasticity, with special emphasis on its functional significance as reflected in behavior and in psychopathology. Neural Plasticity publishes research and review articles from the entire range of relevant disciplines, including basic neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, biological psychology, and biological psychiatry.
×
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