Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40180393›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Combining functional electrical stimulation with visual feedback balance training: a qualitative study of end-user perspectives on designing a clinically feasible intervention.

Elina Nezon, Tanha Patel, Kayla Benson, Katherine Chan, Jae W Lee, Elizabeth L Inness, Dalton L Wolfe, Natasha L Benn, Kei Masani, Kristin E Musselman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors.

Elina NezonRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tanha PatelDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kayla BensonKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine ChanKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-4100
Jae W LeeKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth L InnessRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dalton L WolfeParkwood Institute, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
Natasha L BennRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kei MasaniKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kristin E MusselmanRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada kristin.musselman@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8336-8211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals with stroke or spinal cord injury (SCI) often have poor balance control, leading to falls and activity limitations. One intervention that targets balance control-functional electrical stimulation with visual feedback balance training (FES+VFBT)-may improve balance control but needs modifications for clinical use.

objectiveTo use a participatory design approach to identify potential challenges and solutions for the clinical implementation of FES+VFBT as a balance intervention. DESIGN/

methodsA descriptive qualitative study involving four semi-structured focus group meetings was conducted to explore the perspectives of individuals with stroke and SCI, physical therapists and a hospital administrator on the feasibility and challenges of implementing FES+VFBT into clinical settings. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses. The deductive analysis was based on the social ecological model (SEM) levels, while the inductive approach was used to identify categories and codes.

settingVirtual.

participantsTwo individuals with chronic SCI and one individual with chronic stroke who were able to stand but reported deficits in their balance control. Two physical therapists who had experience with FES and the rehabilitation of individuals with SCI or stroke. One hospital administrator who worked within a neurological rehabilitation setting.

resultsThemes were organised according to the SEM's four levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational/training environment and society/policy. Identified categories included potential challenges at the intrapersonal level (ie, lack of knowledge, safety and tolerance of user) and organisational/training environment level (ie, technical challenges, cost, physical space and time). The categories also included possible solutions at all SEM levels, such as intrapersonal (ie, reading and education), interpersonal (ie, practising together), organisational/training environment (ie, technology characteristics and creating resources) and society/policy (ie, purchasing options, guidelines and foundation grants).

conclusionsEnd-users identified anticipated challenges and solutions to using the FES+VFBT system clinically. The results will inform the design and clinical implementation of a revised version of the system and other FES devices.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyFeedback, SensoryPostural BalanceSpinal Cord InjuriesStroke RehabilitationAccidental FallsAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchStrokeElectric Stimulation TherapyREHABILITATION MEDICINEStroke

Identifiers

PMID40180393
PMCPMC11969585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.