Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31741746›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

Therapist perceptions of a rehabilitation research study in the intensive care unit: a trinational survey assessing barriers and facilitators to implementing the CYCLE pilot randomized clinical trial.

Julie C Reid, Devin S McCaskell, Michelle E Kho

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02377830 (CYCLE Pilot), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02377830 phase2completednot on this map

CYCLE Pilot: A Pilot Randomized Study of Early Cycle Ergometry Versus Routine Physiotherapy in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2015 to 2018Enrolled113ConditionsIntensive Care Unit Acquired Weakness, Critical Care, Mechanical Ventilation, Respiratory FailureArmsIn-bed cycle ergometer (Restorative Therapies RT300 Supine), Routine physiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Julie C Reid1Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1424-3105
Devin S McCaskell2Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6 Canada.
Michelle E Kho1Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRehabilitation interventions, including novel technologies such as in-bed cycling, could reduce critical illness-associated morbidity. Frontline intensive care unit (ICU) therapists often implement these interventions; however, little is known about their perceptions of engaging in clinical research evaluating these technologies.

objectiveTo understand frontline therapist perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of early in-bed cycling with mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU and outcome measures (CYCLE Pilot RCT; NCT02377830).

methodsWe developed a 115-item, self-administered, electronic survey informed by 2 complementary knowledge translation (KT) models: the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) system and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We included demographics and 3 sections: Rehabilitation Practice and Research, Cycling, and Physical Outcome Measures. Each section contained items related to the COM-B system and TDF domains. Item formats included 7-point Likert-type scale questions (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and free-text responses. We invited therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and therapy assistants) who participated in the international, multi-center, CYCLE Pilot RCT to complete this cross-sectional survey. We descriptively analyzed results by survey section, COM-B attribute, TDF domain, and individual question within and across sections. We identified barriers based on items with median scores < 4/7.

resultsOur response rate was 85% (45/53). Respondents were from Canada (67%), the USA (21%), and Australia (11%). The majority had a physiotherapy background (87%) and previous research experience (87%). By section, Rehabilitation Practice and Research (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [82%, 87%]) was higher than Cycling (77%; 95% CI [73%, 80%]) and Outcome Measures (78%; 95% CI [75%, 82%]). Across the 3 sections, Motivation was lower than Capability and Opportunity. The most common Motivation barrier was the emotion TDF domain, related to the time required to conduct cycling and outcome measures (median [1st, 3rd quartiles] 3/7 [2, 6]).

conclusionsFrontline ICU therapists had positive perceptions of research engagement. However, we identified barriers related to Motivation, and concerns regarding time to implement the research protocol. Our results can inform specific KT strategies to engage frontline ICU therapists and optimize protocol implementation in critical care rehabilitation research.

Indexed as

Knowledge translationPhysical therapistsQuestionnaireRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID31741746
PMCPMC6849178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.