ArticleBMJ open2021
Exploring physiotherapists' and occupational therapists' perceptions of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 after stroke in a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Physiotherapist Predictions for Independent Walking After Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2024Trial
- Temporal External Validation of the TWIST Prediction Tool for Time to Independent Walking after Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Article
- Upper Limb Function 3 Months Post-Stroke: How Accurate Are Physiotherapist Predictions?Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025Article
- Predicting later categories of upper limb activity from earlier clinical assessments following stroke: an exploratory analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how physiotherapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) perceive upper limb (UL) prediction algorithms in a stroke rehabilitation setting and identify potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation.
designThis was a qualitative study.
settingThe study took place at a neurorehabilitation centre.
participantsThree to six PTs and OTs.
methodsWe conducted four focus group interviews in order to explore therapists' perceptions of UL prediction algorithms, in particular the Predict Recovery Potential algorithm (PREP2). The Consolidated Framework for advancing Implementation Research was used to develop the interview guide. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis. Meaning units were identified and subthemes formed. Information gained from all interviews was synthesised, and four main themes emerged.
resultsThe four main themes were current practice, perceived benefits, barriers and preconditions for implementation. The participants knew of UL prediction algorithms. However, only a few had a profound knowledge and few were using the Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension test, a core component of the PREP2 algorithm, in their current practice. PREP2 was considered a potentially helpful tool when planning treatment and setting goals. A main barrier was concern about the accuracy of the algorithm. Furthermore, participants dreaded potential dilemmas arising from having to confront the patients with their prognosis. Preconditions for implementation included tailoring the implementation to a specific unit, sufficient time for acquiring new skills and an organisation supporting implementation.
conclusionIn the present study, experienced neurological therapists were sceptical towards prediction algorithms due to the lack of precision of the algorithms and concerns about ethical dilemmas. However, the PREP2 algorithm was regarded as potentially useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.