ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
Perspectives on Barriers to Use and Benefits of Functional Electrical Stimulation From Australians and New Zealanders With SCI and Clinicians and Researchers in the Field.
Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To document, through a survey, perceptions of functional electrical stimulation (FES) from people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and carers, clinicians, and researchers (CCR). Methods: Online questionnaires were completed in Australia and New Zealand from December 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022. Subgroups included people with SCI who have used FES, people with SCI who have not used FES, CCRs who have used FES, and CCRs who have not used FES. Frequencies and percentages of subgroup data were calculated for all questions. Open-ended responses were analyzed with inductive content analysis. Results: Ninety-nine responses (70 people with SCI, 29 CCR) were analyzed. Out of the 99 responses, 47 people with SCI and 27 CCRs had used or currently use FES. Muscle strength was the most frequently reported benefit by people with SCI and CCRs who use(d) FES. Lack of training was the most frequently reported barrier to FES by people with SCI (85% of question responders) and CCRs (94%) who had used FES. People with SCI (95%) who had not used FES reported access as a barrier. The leading priorities for future research include improved ease of use for people with SCI (60% people with SCI) and clinical guidelines (48% CCR). Qualitative findings supported the quantitative findings. Conclusion: This survey identified access as a barrier to FES and echoed benefits (strength) and barriers (training) reported in previous research. Ameliorating the barriers and investigating the areas of future research identified in this study will ultimately improve FES uptake in SCI rehabilitation.
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.