Search

Purpose: People with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are frequently inactive with increased risk of higher rates of chronic health conditions, mortality and economic burden than peers without TBI. Understanding how this population experience physical activity participation may help us develop better pathways and supports to community-based physical activity., Materials and Methods: Using an interpretive description approach, we conducted a secondary analysis of focus group and interview data. Themes were generated in two stages of inductive coding and refined in a workshop by the author team which comprised multidisciplinary researchers, clinicians and people with lived experience of moderate-to-severe TBI., Results: Twenty-two people with moderate-to-severe TBI took part. They experienced physical activity in diverse and often changing ways, reflecting the numerous, powerful tensions that people with TBI are striving to navigate. Four themes were identified: 1. What is my new normal?, 2. Invisible injuries, hidden needs, 3. The long road back to physical activity, and 4. Expanding horizons., Conclusions: People with moderate-to-severe TBI have to work hard to be physically active. Results indicate that physical activity promotion should include person-centred information and support, appropriate community-based options that go beyond rehabilitation, and insurance funding that recognises the value of life-long physical activity.

Purpose: To investigate potential mechanisms of a digital rehabilitation intervention associated with improved mobility among adults undertaking rehabilitation., Materials and Methods: Causal mediation analysis of the AMOUNT trial (ACTRN12614000936628). Participants were randomised to digitally-enabled rehabilitation (virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices prescribed by a physiotherapist) and usual care or usual care alone. Outcomes were mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery; continuous version; range 0-3), physical activity (average steps per day), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; utility score; range 0-1) measured at 6-months post-randomisation. Hypothesised mediators included mobility, physical activity, cognition, balance confidence, pain, activity and participation, and computer self-efficacy, assessed at 3-weeks post-randomisation., Results: 216 participants with complete data were included. Three-week sit-to-stand ability mediated 6-month mobility (indirect effect 0.09 points, 95%CI 0.03-0.16), explaining 48% of the intervention's effect. Dynamic single-leg-stance balance mediated physical activity (indirect effect 345 steps per day, 95%CI 63-678) and composite mobility mediated quality of life (indirect effect 0.03 points, 95%CI 0.00-0.05)., Conclusion: Digital rehabilitation outcomes appear to be mediated through sit-to-stand ability, dynamic single-leg-stance balance, and overall mobility. While future research is required to better understand these mediators, our findings recommend sit-to-stand training as a core element of digital rehabilitation interventions targeting mobility.

Purpose: To explore physiotherapists' views on the usability of feedback-based technologies used in physical rehabilitation., Materials and Methods: A mixed methods study which was nested within a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of affordable feedback-based technologies to improve mobility and physical activity within aged care and neurological rehabilitation. Technologies included virtual reality systems, handheld device apps and wearable devices. Physiotherapists ( n  = 11) who were involved in prescribing technologies during the trial rated the usability of 11 different devices using the System Usability Scale (SUS), then attended a focus group. Descriptive statistics and framework analysis were used for analysis., Results: Fitbit devices (mean 89.8, SD 9.3), Fysiogaming (mean 75.6, SD 15.3) and Xbox Kinect (mean 75.5, SD 11.2) rated in the acceptable range (>70) on the SUS. Three key factors on usability emerged from the focus groups: (1) Key device features relating to practicalities (ease of set up and use, reliability, safety) and therapeutic benefit (customisation, high active practice time, useful feedback) are important for usability; (2) Usability depends on the context of use; and (3) Usability can be enhanced with technical, clinical, environmental and financial support., Conclusions: Health service managers and clinicians should consider key device features identified, contextual factors of their service, and supports available when selecting technologies for use in clinical practice. Further collaboration between clinicians, researchers and technology developers would benefit future technology development, particularly taking into consideration the identified key device features from this study.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTechnology selection should be based on key device features relating to both practicalities and therapeutic benefit.Contextual factors and available supports should also be considered when selecting technologies.Key usability features identified in this study such as ease of set up, reliability and customisability should be considered in the design of future feedback-based technologies to optimise usability in physical rehabilitation.

Purpose: To describe device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase of the AMOUNT rehabilitation trial., Methods: We performed an evaluation of the support required for device use by participants randomised to the intervention group who received digitally-enabled rehabilitation in the post-hospital phase ( n  = 144). Intervention, additional to standard rehabilitation, utilised eight digital devices (virtual reality videogames, activity monitors and handheld computer devices) to improve mobility and increase physical activity. Participants were taught to use devices during inpatient rehabilitation and were then discharged home to use the devices for the remainder of the 6-month trial. Physiotherapist-participant contact occurred every 1-2 weeks using a health coaching approach, including technology support when required. Intervention datasheets were audited, and descriptive statistics used to report device use and support required., Results: Participants (mean (SD) age 70 (18) years; 49% neurological health conditions) used an average of 2 (SD 1) devices (98% used an activity monitor). Eight percent of physiotherapy contact included technology support with 30% provided remotely. Support addressed 845 issues categorised under initial set-up and instruction (27%), education and training (31%), maintenance (23%) and trouble-shooting (19%)., Conclusion: Digital devices can be used for home-based rehabilitation, but ongoing technology support is essential. Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000936628IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDigital device use at home to support long-term management of health conditions is likely to become increasingly important as the need for rehabilitation increases and rehabilitation resources become more limited.Technology support for set-up and ongoing device use is a critical enabler of home-based digital interventions.Health professionals delivering home-based digital interventions require sufficient training and equipment and may need to vary the mode (e.g., home visit vs. telephone or video conference) depending on the technology support required.

Purpose: To synthesise therapist experiences of using feedback-based technology for physical rehabilitation through a systematic review of qualitative studies. Methods: Ten electronic databases were searched up to March 2017. Peer reviewed studies that provided qualitative data that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Relevant text from each study was extracted including quotes and the author's interpretations. Data were imported into NVivo for analysis. Text was coded for content, then categorised using a thematic synthesis approach. Results: The search yielded 50,379 records. Of 340 full text articles assessed for eligibility, 12 publications (10 studies) were included. Themes that emerged relating to therapists' experience of using feedback-based technology in practice were: (1) the benefits of using technology; (2) practicalities of using technology in practice; (3) the need for support; and (4) design to support the use of technology in rehabilitation. Conclusions: Therapists perceive many benefits to using feedback-based technologies in rehabilitation but view it as an addition rather than an alternative to usual therapy. Input from therapists was perceived to be needed for technology to achieve therapeutic benefit. Technology use in practice may be influenced by design limitations or the available support to access and use the technology. Implications for Rehabilitation Therapists perceive technology can be used for benefit as an adjunct to usual therapy with the skilled input of a therapist to assess and monitor patient performance to ensure the "right" quality and quantity of movements for recovery. Technology prescription requires an investment of time and a tailored approach so that its use meets the needs of the individual patient. Support for training, evidence of effectiveness and access to technology is imperative for implementation in practice. Therapists need to work collaboratively with technology developers to improve the design and usability of technologies to better support the rehabilitation process.