Trial reportSpinal cord2026
Motivations and expectations for spinal cord epidural stimulation study participation: perspectives from individuals with spinal cord injury and caregivers.
Trial report in Spinal cord, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designQualitative, semi structured interviews.
objectivesSpinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) has shown promise for improving autonomic and motor function in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Participation in translational studies often requires relocation, uprooting the individual and caregivers from their community. Recognizing this burden, this study aimed to explore the motivations and expectations driving the decision to participate in a scES study.
settingKentucky Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, University of Louisville, USA.
methods23 interviews were conducted at enrollment in a randomized trial evaluating scES efficacy. Respondents were 18 individuals with SCI (40 ± 10 years old, 12 ± 10 years since injury, 44% males, all cervical, ASIA Impairment Scale: 39% A, 39% B, 22% C) and 5 caregivers. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a thematic approach.
resultsFour main themes emerged: gaining independence, improving function, benevolence, and other. Participants and caregivers hoped that improved function would lead to more independence-described as "a little more freedom," "experience the world," and to "not rely on someone." Any change was expressed as improving the quality of life. Many managed their expectations by recognizing the impact of individual characteristics on outcomes. Even if no improvement occurred, participation felt meaningful-motivated by benevolence and a desire to advance SCI research and help others.
conclusionsPeople with SCI and their caregivers participate in scES research with cautious optimism to gain freedom and improve quality of life through improved function. They also aim to help others through advancing science. SPONSORSHIP: This work was funded by Department of Defense (W81XWH-19-1-0734). The parent study was funded by Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, and Medtronic Plc for spinal cord epidural stimulation implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41957247What 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.