Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419166›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Therapists' perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study.

Hope Jervis-Rademeyer, Kenneth Ong, Alexander Djuric, Sarah Munce, Kristin E Musselman, Cesar Marquez-Chin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hope Jervis-RademeyerRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kenneth OngThe KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Alexander DjuricThe KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Sarah MunceRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kristin E MusselmanRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Cesar Marquez-ChinThe KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. Cesar.Marquez@uhn.ca.
University Health Network · CAToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy (BCI-FEST) has shown promise as a therapy to improve upper extremity function for individuals who have had a stroke or spinal cord injury. The next step is to determine whether BCI-FEST could be used clinically as part of broader therapy practice. To do this, we need to understand therapists' opinions on using the BCI-FEST and what limitations potentially exist. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study to understand the perspectives of therapists on their experiences delivering BCI-FEST and the feasibility of large-scale clinical implementation.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) who have delivered BCI-FEST. Interview questions were developed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model of behaviour change. COM-B components were used to inform deductive content analysis while other subthemes were detected using an inductive approach.

resultsWe interviewed PTs (n = 3) and OTs (n = 3), with 360 combined hours of experience delivering BCI-FEST. Components and subcomponents of the COM-B determined deductively included: (1) Capability (physical, psychological), (2) Opportunity (physical, social), and (3) Motivation (automatic, reflective). Under each deductive subcomponent, one to two inductive subthemes were identified (n = 8). Capability and Motivation were perceived as strengths, and therefore supported therapists' decisions to use BCI-FEST. Under Opportunity, for both subcomponents (physical, social), therapists recognized the need for more support to clinically implement BCI-FEST.

conclusionsWe identified facilitating and limiting factors to BCI-FEST delivery in a clinical setting according to clinicians. These factors implied that education, training, a support network or mentors, and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., scheduling) should be targeted as interventions. The results of this study may help to inform future development of new technologies and interventions.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansParalysisQualitative ResearchUpper ExtremityBrain-computer interfaceFunctional electrical stimulationParalysisRehabilitationSpinal cord injuryStroke

Identifiers

PMID36419166
PMCPMC9684970
OpenAlexW4309885499

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.