Process evaluation of daily electrical stimulation to prevent recurring pressure ulcers in individuals with spinal cord injury: the SCI PREVOLT trial.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Boas J Wijker, Joske Nauta, Sonja de Groot, Johanna M van Dongen, Femke van Nassau, Gioia N Muru, Ellen M Maas, Ilse J W van Nes, Thomas W J Janssen
{"title":"Process evaluation of daily electrical stimulation to prevent recurring pressure ulcers in individuals with spinal cord injury: the SCI PREVOLT trial.","authors":"Boas J Wijker, Joske Nauta, Sonja de Groot, Johanna M van Dongen, Femke van Nassau, Gioia N Muru, Ellen M Maas, Ilse J W van Nes, Thomas W J Janssen","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2026.2742543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This process evaluation assessed the implementation of electrical stimulation (ES) for pressure ulcers (PUs) prevention in individuals with spinal cord injury alongside a randomized controlled trial and identified facilitators and barriers for the implementation in home environment and rehabilitation care.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A mixed-methods evaluation was structured according to the RE-AIM framework. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analyzed using the Fleuren framework; questionnaire and fieldnote data were supplementary sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 70 SCI PREVOLT participants, 13 and 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Recruitment <i>via</i> rehabilitation centers was most effective; PUs prevention was the main motivation for participation. Participants reported both positive and negative effects of ES, although most perceived the intervention as beneficial overall. Adoption depended on prior experience, staff involvement, and motivation. Adherence was hindered by limited time, need for assistance, and user-friendliness. Barriers included limited evidence, unclear responsibilities, and lack of reimbursement. Successful maintenance requires flexibility, clear guidance, support, and additional training for professionals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ES is a promising but demanding intervention for PUs prevention. Limited evidence, usability issues, and organizational barriers hinder implementation. Improved usability, clear roles, and strong support are essential for future use.</p>","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2026.2742543","RegionNum":4,"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

Objective: This process evaluation assessed the implementation of electrical stimulation (ES) for pressure ulcers (PUs) prevention in individuals with spinal cord injury alongside a randomized controlled trial and identified facilitators and barriers for the implementation in home environment and rehabilitation care.

Method: A mixed-methods evaluation was structured according to the RE-AIM framework. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analyzed using the Fleuren framework; questionnaire and fieldnote data were supplementary sources.

Results: Of 70 SCI PREVOLT participants, 13 and 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Recruitment via rehabilitation centers was most effective; PUs prevention was the main motivation for participation. Participants reported both positive and negative effects of ES, although most perceived the intervention as beneficial overall. Adoption depended on prior experience, staff involvement, and motivation. Adherence was hindered by limited time, need for assistance, and user-friendliness. Barriers included limited evidence, unclear responsibilities, and lack of reimbursement. Successful maintenance requires flexibility, clear guidance, support, and additional training for professionals.

Conclusion: ES is a promising but demanding intervention for PUs prevention. Limited evidence, usability issues, and organizational barriers hinder implementation. Improved usability, clear roles, and strong support are essential for future use.

脊髓损伤患者每日电刺激预防复发性压疮的过程评估:SCI PREVOLT试验
目的:本过程评估评估了电刺激(ES)预防脊髓损伤个体压疮(pu)的实施,并通过随机对照试验确定了在家庭环境和康复护理中实施的促进因素和障碍。方法:采用RE-AIM框架进行综合评价。使用Fleuren框架对半结构化访谈进行主题分析;问卷调查和实地记录数据是补充来源。结果:在70名SCI PREVOLT参与者中,分别采访了13名和13名医疗保健专业人员。通过康复中心招募是最有效的;预防脓包是参与的主要动机。参与者报告了ES的积极和消极影响,尽管大多数人认为干预总体上是有益的。采用与否取决于先前的经验、员工的参与和积极性。时间有限、需要帮助和用户友好性阻碍了坚持治疗。障碍包括证据有限、责任不明确和缺乏报销。成功的维护需要灵活性、清晰的指导、支持和对专业人员的额外培训。结论:ES是预防脓疱的有效干预措施。有限的证据、可用性问题和组织障碍阻碍了实现。改进的可用性、明确的角色和强大的支持对于将来的使用是必不可少的。
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
Disability and Rehabilitation
Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
415
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.
×
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