Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904855›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

How Community-Based Teams Use the Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner: Longitudinal Qualitative Field Test Study.

Jessica Reszel, Joan van den Hoek, Tram Nguyen, Gayatri Aravind, Mark T Bayley, Marie-Louise Bird, Kate Edwards, Janice J Eng, Jennifer L Moore, Michelle L A Nelson and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Jessica ReszelOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-5629
Joan van den HoekOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9718-2696
Tram NguyenOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-2397
Gayatri AravindMarch of Dimes Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6891-6670
Mark T BayleyDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7860-9463
Marie-Louise BirdCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9642-7196
Kate EdwardsCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2481-7501
Janice J EngDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2093-0788
Jennifer L MooreSouth Eastern Norway Regional Knowledge Translation Center, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6968-0679
Michelle L A NelsonMarch of Dimes Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-0298
Michelle PloughmanFaculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-0077
Julie RichardsonSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6356-0492
Nancy M SalbachThe KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6178-0691
Ada TangSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6641-4017
Ian D GrahamOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-1216
University of Ottawa · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Tasmania · AUMarch of Dimes Canada · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CAOttawa Hospital · CASunnaas sykehus · NOUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner guides teams through the process of planning for the implementation of community-based exercise programs for people with stroke, in alignment with implementation science frameworks.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a field test with end users to describe how teams used the Planner in real-world conditions; describe the effects of Planner use on participants' implementation-planning knowledge, attitudes, and activities; and identify factors influencing the use of the Planner.

methodsThis field test study used a longitudinal qualitative design. We recruited teams across Canada who intended to implement a community-based exercise program for people with stroke in the next 6 to 12 months and were willing to use the Planner to guide their work. We completed semistructured interviews at the time of enrollment, monitoring calls every 1 to 2 months, and at the end of the study to learn about implementation-planning work completed and Planner use. The interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Completed Planner steps were plotted onto a timeline for comparison across teams.

resultsWe enrolled 12 participants (program managers and coordinators, rehabilitation professionals, and fitness professionals) from 5 planning teams. The teams were enrolled in the study between 4 and 14 months, and we conducted 25 interviews. We observed that the teams worked through the planning process in diverse and nonlinear ways, adapted to their context. All teams provided examples of how using the Planner changed their implementation-planning knowledge (eg, knowing the steps), attitudes (eg, valuing community engagement), and activities (eg, hosting stakeholder meetings). We identified team, organizational, and broader contextual factors that hindered and facilitated uptake of the Planner. Participants shared valuable tips from the field to help future teams optimize use of the Planner.

conclusionsThe Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner is an adaptable resource that may be used in diverse settings to plan community-based exercise programs for people with stroke. These findings may be informative to others who are developing resources to build the capacity of those working in community-based settings to implement new programs and practices. Future work is needed to monitor the use and understand the effect of using the Planner on exercise program implementation and sustainability.

Indexed as

capacity buildingcommunity-based exercise programsimplementation planningimplementation scienceknowledge mobilizationknowledge translationrehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID35904855
PMCPMC9377454
OpenAlexW4288691588

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.