Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39478460›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Barriers and facilitators to conducting randomised controlled trials within routine care of neurorehabilitation centres: a qualitative study.

Isabella Hotz, Nathalie Ernst, Christian Brenneis, Gudrun Diermayr, Barbara Seebacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Isabella HotzClinic for Rehabilitation Münster, Department of Rehabilitation Science, Münster, Austria.
Nathalie ErnstClinic for Rehabilitation Münster, Department of Neurology, Münster, Austria.
Christian BrenneisClinic for Rehabilitation Münster, Department of Rehabilitation Science, Münster, Austria.
Gudrun DiermayrSchool of Therapeutic Sciences, SRH Hochschule Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Barbara SeebacherClinic for Rehabilitation Münster, Department of Rehabilitation Science, Münster, Austria. barbara.seebacher@i-med.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating clinical evidence. The focus on high internal validity in RCTs challenges the external validity and generalisability of findings, potentially hindering their application in routine care. In neurorehabilitation, limited literature addresses conducting RCTs feasibly and efficiently. We investigated barriers and facilitators to conducting RCTs within routine care of neurorehabilitation centres from the perspective of stakeholders in neurorehabilitation in Germany and Austria.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in neurorehabilitation from four centres in Germany and Austria, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model (COM-B). Employing a hybrid approach, the interview analysis integrated both deductive, theory-driven analysis based on the TDF domains and COM-B model and inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsTwelve stakeholders (4 physicians, 4 therapy managers, 4 therapists; 5 females, 7 males; with research experience spanning 0-40 years) were interviewed. Key barriers to conducting RCTs in neurological rehabilitation centres include limited financial, human, and time resources, high clinical workloads, and a lack of interest of some therapists. Ineffective leadership, perceived lack of research expertise, and communication issues were also significant barriers. Social influence factors such as lack of employer support and inadequate training access further contributed to the challenges. Additionally, barriers included insufficient research infrastructure, limited space, internal power struggles, and rigid cost bearer specifications. Key facilitators included physicians' and therapists' motivation to advance the field, contribute to knowledge, and to prioritise patient health. Support from supervisors, joint decision-making, and efficient organisation were crucial facilitators. Flexible therapy planning, mutual support, and interdisciplinary collaboration also played important roles.

conclusionOur results suggest that increasing professional development and understanding, along with providing adequate financial, human, time, and spatial resources to support research endeavours, implementing effective communication strategies to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination among team members may contribute to increased motivation and facilitate RCTs within the setting of neurorehabilitation centres.

trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (08.04.2021 DRKSID DRKS00024982).

Indexed as

Neurological RehabilitationQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultAustriaFemaleGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMotivationRehabilitation CentersBarriers and facilitatorsDelivery of Health CareFeasibilityInterviewRandomised Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID39478460
PMCPMC11523832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.