Engagement strategies to support sub-acute, post-stroke upper limb interventions: A co-design study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Matthew Wingfield, Gavin Williams, Amy Brodtmann, Kevin English, Sarah P Newton, Ruth Barker, Kathyrn S Hayward, Natalie A Fini
{"title":"Engagement strategies to support sub-acute, post-stroke upper limb interventions: A co-design study.","authors":"Matthew Wingfield, Gavin Williams, Amy Brodtmann, Kevin English, Sarah P Newton, Ruth Barker, Kathyrn S Hayward, Natalie A Fini","doi":"10.1177/02692155261490507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo co-design clinician-delivered strategies to support stroke survivor engagement during sub-acute, face-to-face upper limb rehabilitation sessions.DesignFour-stage integrated knowledge translation co-design study.ParticipantsThree groups of purposively selected knowledge-users (stroke survivor, clinician and science).SettingScience knowledge-user group included international authors and industry leaders with stroke recovery and/or engagement expertise. Other knowledge-users were Australian clinicians and stroke survivors recruited through research networks.Intervention/methodsNo intervention was delivered. Study scope was defined through team meetings (Stage 1); knowledge-user perspectives on engagement were collected through workshops and interviews (Stage 2); data were synthesised through descriptive content analysis (Stage 3); engagement strategies were refined through knowledge-user workshops and interviews (Stage 4).ResultsStudy scope was restricted to in-person rehabilitation sessions in the subacute recovery phase (Stage 1). Thirty knowledge-users participated (stroke survivor <i>n</i> = 9, clinician <i>n</i> = 11 and science <i>n</i> = 10) in workshops and interviews (Stage 2). Thirteen engagement themes were identified and synthesised into 10 engagement strategies (Stage 3). Eighteen knowledge-users (stroke survivor <i>n</i> = 5, clinician <i>n</i> = 8 and science <i>n</i> = 5) refined strategy wording, framing and confirmed personalisation as the governing principle across strategies that may be applied through two clinician-adjustable parameters: timing (proactive or reactive) and emphasis (subtle to explicit) (Stage 4).ConclusionUsing co-design, we produced a suite of clinician strategies that may support stroke survivor engagement during post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation sessions. Personalisation through timing and emphasis was positioned as the governing principle guiding each engagement strategy. Feasibility for use in clinical practice remains to be tested.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"2692155261490507"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","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/10.1177/02692155261490507","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo co-design clinician-delivered strategies to support stroke survivor engagement during sub-acute, face-to-face upper limb rehabilitation sessions.DesignFour-stage integrated knowledge translation co-design study.ParticipantsThree groups of purposively selected knowledge-users (stroke survivor, clinician and science).SettingScience knowledge-user group included international authors and industry leaders with stroke recovery and/or engagement expertise. Other knowledge-users were Australian clinicians and stroke survivors recruited through research networks.Intervention/methodsNo intervention was delivered. Study scope was defined through team meetings (Stage 1); knowledge-user perspectives on engagement were collected through workshops and interviews (Stage 2); data were synthesised through descriptive content analysis (Stage 3); engagement strategies were refined through knowledge-user workshops and interviews (Stage 4).ResultsStudy scope was restricted to in-person rehabilitation sessions in the subacute recovery phase (Stage 1). Thirty knowledge-users participated (stroke survivor n = 9, clinician n = 11 and science n = 10) in workshops and interviews (Stage 2). Thirteen engagement themes were identified and synthesised into 10 engagement strategies (Stage 3). Eighteen knowledge-users (stroke survivor n = 5, clinician n = 8 and science n = 5) refined strategy wording, framing and confirmed personalisation as the governing principle across strategies that may be applied through two clinician-adjustable parameters: timing (proactive or reactive) and emphasis (subtle to explicit) (Stage 4).ConclusionUsing co-design, we produced a suite of clinician strategies that may support stroke survivor engagement during post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation sessions. Personalisation through timing and emphasis was positioned as the governing principle guiding each engagement strategy. Feasibility for use in clinical practice remains to be tested.

参与策略支持亚急性中风后上肢干预:一项共同设计研究。
目的共同设计临床交付策略,以支持中风幸存者在亚急性、面对面上肢康复过程中的参与。设计四阶段集成知识翻译协同设计研究。参与者:有目的选择的三组知识使用者(中风幸存者、临床医生和科学家)。SettingScience知识用户组包括具有中风康复和/或参与专业知识的国际作者和行业领导者。其他知识使用者是通过研究网络招募的澳大利亚临床医生和中风幸存者。干预/方法未进行干预。通过团队会议确定研究范围(阶段1);通过研讨会和访谈收集了知识使用者对参与的看法(第二阶段);通过描述性内容分析(阶段3)对数据进行综合;通过知识使用者研讨会和访谈(第四阶段)完善参与策略。结果研究范围局限于亚急性康复期(1期)的亲自康复疗程。30名知识使用者(中风幸存者n = 9,临床医生n = 11,科学工作者n = 10)参加了研讨会和访谈(第二阶段)。确定了13个业务参与主题,并将其综合为10个业务参与策略(第三阶段)。18名知识使用者(中风幸存者n = 5,临床医生n = 8和科学n = 5)将策略措辞、框架和确定的个性化作为贯穿策略的支配原则,这些策略可以通过两个临床可调参数来应用:时机(主动或被动)和重点(微妙到明确)(阶段4)。通过共同设计,我们制定了一套临床医生策略,可以支持中风幸存者在中风后上肢康复期间的参与。通过时间和重点进行个性化被定位为指导每个参与策略的主导原则。在临床实践中使用的可行性仍有待检验。
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
小红书