ArticleBMC health services research2022
Patients' and professionals' perspectives on the consideration of patients' convenient therapy periods as part of personalised rehabilitation: a focus group study with patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple imputation integrated to machine learning: predicting post-stroke recovery of ambulation after intensive inpatient rehabilitation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- EEG Hyperscanning and Qualitative Analysis of Moments of Interest in Music Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation-A Feasibility Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Dyadic nonverbal synchrony during pre and post music therapy interventions and its relationship to self-reported therapy readiness.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
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
backgroundResearch on the optimal period for administering health services, especially rehabilitation interventions, is scarce. The aims of this study were to explore the construct of patients' convenient therapy periods and to identify indicators based on the perspectives of patients and different health professionals from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics.
methodsThis study was part of a larger project on patients' convenient therapy periods following a mixed methods approach. In the current study a grounded theory approach was employed based on the use of focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were conducted in three different inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics. Patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics who were able to speak and to participate in conversations were included.
resultsA total of 41 persons, including 23 patients and 18 therapists, such as music and occupational therapists, participated in a total of six focus group interviews. The analysis of the focus group interviews resulted in the identification of a total of 1261 codes, which could be summarised in fifteen categories. However, these categories could be divided into five indicators and ten impact factors of convenient therapy periods. Identified indicators were verbal and non-verbal communication, mental functions, physiological needs, recreational needs, and therapy initiation.
conclusionsThe results provide initial evidence that convenient therapy periods are clinically relevant for patients and therapists. Different states of patients' ability to effectively participate in a rehabilitation intervention exist. A systematic consideration of patients' convenient therapy periods could contribute to a personalised and more efficient delivery of intervention in neurological rehabilitation. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to research convenient therapy periods.
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.