ArticlePloS one2025
Development of a functional electrical stimulation cycling toolkit for spinal cord injury rehabilitation in acute care hospitals: A participatory action approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to develop a toolkit to facilitate the implementation of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling for persons with a newly acquired spinal cord injury (SCI) in the acute care inpatient hospital setting. The researchers and community members used participatory action as a research approach to co-create the toolkit. We held two focus groups to develop drafts, with a third meeting to provide feedback, and a fourth meeting to evaluate the toolkit and determine dissemination strategies. Toolkit development followed the Planning, Action, Reflection, Evaluation cycle. We used an iterative design informed by focus group and toolkit consultant (SC) feedback. In focus group discussions, we included FES cycling champions (JK, DW) who led acute care implementation. Focus group members, recruited through purposive sampling, had to 1) have an understanding about FES cycling in acute care for SCI and 2) represent one of these groups: individual living with SCI, social support, hospital manager, clinician, therapist, researcher, and/or acute care FES cycling champion. Twelve individuals took part in four focus groups to develop a toolkit designed to facilitate implementation of FES cycling in SCI acute care in Edmonton, Alberta. Group members included an individual with lived experience, three acute-care occupational or physical therapists, three acute-care hospital managers, and five researchers. Two physical therapists also identified as clinical FES cycling champions. Following an inductive content analysis, we identified four main themes: 1) Health care provider toolkit content and categories, 2) Health care provider toolkit end product, 3) Collaborations between groups and institutions and 4) Infrastructure. Interested parties who utilize FES cycling in acute care for SCI rehabilitation agree that toolkits should target the appropriate group, be acute care setting-specific, and provide information for a smooth transition in care.
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.