ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring needs and requirements for a prototype device measuring physical activity in pediatric physical therapy: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo analyze needs and requirements of Pediatric Physical Therapists (PPTs), parents, children and adolescents with and without developmental disabilities in the future use of an activity monitor prototype (AM-p) in everyday clinical practice.
methodsQualitative exploratory study with a thematic analysis approach, based on Braun and Clarke's six steps. Codes derived from the analysis and central themes were collated, based on Fleuren et al.'s groupings of determinants.
resultsWe interviewed 25 PPTs, 12 parents, and 12 children and adolescents. Within four groupings of determinants, we found nine themes: 1) development of information materials; 2) application: output visualization and ease of use; 3) design; 4) relevance and acceptance; 5) shared decision-making; 6) compatibility in daily living; 7) finances, 8) time, and 9) legislation and regulations.
conclusionsEnd-users have similar basic needs, with individual fine-tuning to be addressed during further development of the AM-p. A child-friendly design, information material, and an easy-to-use application to read and interpret results, need to be developed. Efficient training for PPTs is important for the use of the AM-p and analysis of results. Communication between PPTs and children as well as parents enhances shared decision-making. We recommend involving diverse end-users to enable maximum customization of the AM-p.
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.