Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25885251›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Development of a behaviour change intervention to increase upper limb exercise in stroke rehabilitation.

Louise A Connell, Naoimh E McMahon, Judith Redfern, Caroline L Watkins, Janice J Eng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Louise A ConnellClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, England. laconnell@uclan.ac.uk.
Naoimh E McMahonClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, England. nmcmahon@uclan.ac.uk.
Judith RedfernClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, England. jredfern1@uclan.ac.uk.
Caroline L WatkinsClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, England. clwatkins@uclan.ac.uk.
Janice J EngDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, 212-2177 Wesbrook Mall, V6T 1Z3, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. janice.eng@ubc.ca.
University of Lancashire · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2012-05-201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo thirds of survivors will achieve independent ambulation after a stroke, but less than half will recover upper limb function. There is strong evidence to support intensive repetitive task-oriented training for recovery after stroke. The number of repetitions needed is suggested to be in the order of hundreds, but this is not currently being achieved in clinical practice. In an effort to bridge this evidence-practice gap, we have developed a behaviour change intervention that aims to increase provision of upper limb repetitive task-oriented training in stroke rehabilitation. This paper aims to describe the systematic processes that took place in collaboratively developing the behaviour change intervention.

methodsThe methods used in this study were not defined a priori but were guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel. The process was collaborative and iterative with four stages of development emerging (i) establishing an intervention development group; (ii) structured discussions to understand the problem, prioritise target behaviours and analyse target behaviours; (iii) collaborative design of theoretically underpinned intervention components and (iv) piloting and refining of intervention components.

resultsThe intervention development group consisted of the research team and stroke therapy team at a local stroke rehabilitation unit. The group prioritised four target behaviours at the therapist level: (i) identifying suitable patients for exercises, (ii) provision of exercises, (iii) communicating exercises to family/visitors and (iv) monitoring and reviewing exercises. It also provides a method for self-monitoring performance in order to measure fidelity. The developed intervention, PRACTISE (Promoting Recovery of the Arm: Clinical Tools for Intensive Stroke Exercise), consists of team meetings and the PRACTISE Toolkit (screening tool and upper limb exercise plan, PRACTISE exercise pack and an audit tool).

conclusionsThis paper provides an example of how the Behaviour Change Wheel may be applied in the collaborative development of a behaviour change intervention for health professionals. The process involved was resource-intensive, and the iterative process was difficult to capture. The use of a published behaviour change framework and taxonomy will assist replication in future research and clinical use. The feasibility and acceptability of PRACTISE is currently being explored in two other stroke rehabilitation units.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationArmExercise TherapyHumansRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID25885251
PMCPMC4358857
OpenAlexW2102810760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.