ArticleClinical rehabilitation2024
Spatial Neglect: An Exploration of Clinical Assessment Behaviour in Stroke Rehabilitation.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is a large gap between evidence-based recommendations for spatial neglect assessment and clinical practice in stroke rehabilitation. We aimed to describe factors that may contribute to this gap, clinician perceptions of an ideal assessment tool, and potential implementation strategies to change clinical practice in this area.
designQualitative focus group investigation. Focus group questions were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and asked participants to describe their experiences and perceptions of spatial neglect assessment.
settingOnline stroke rehabilitation educational bootcamp.
participantsA sample of 23 occupational therapists, three physiotherapists, and one orthoptist that attended the bootcamp.
interventionPrior to their focus group, participants watched an hour-long educational session about spatial neglect. MAIN MEASURES: A deductive analysis with the Theoretical Domains Framework was used to describe perceived determinants of clinical spatial neglect assessment. An inductive thematic analysis was used to describe perceptions of an ideal assessment tool and practice-change strategies in this area.
resultsParticipants reported that their choice of spatial neglect assessment was influenced by a belief that it would positively impact the function of people with stroke. However, a lack of knowledge about spatial neglect assessment appeared to drive low clinical use of standardised functional assessments. Participants recommended open-source online education involving a multidisciplinary team, with live-skill practice for the implementation of spatial neglect assessment tools.
conclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians prefer functional assessments of spatial neglect, but multiple factors such as knowledge, training, and policy change are required to enable their translation to clinical practice.
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.