Chrissie Ho, Shivam Sharma, Tiffany Huang, Daniel Cheung, Cameron Hicks, Daniel Treacy, Melanie K Farlie, Freddy M H Lam, Stephen R Lord, Yoshiro Okubo
{"title":"临床医生对用于预防跌倒的 ReacStep 反应性平衡训练计划的接受度。","authors":"Chrissie Ho, Shivam Sharma, Tiffany Huang, Daniel Cheung, Cameron Hicks, Daniel Treacy, Melanie K Farlie, Freddy M H Lam, Stephen R Lord, Yoshiro Okubo","doi":"10.1002/pri.2133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine if a novel reactive balance training program (ReacStep) designed for clinical settings is acceptable to clinicians prescribing balance and mobility training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ReacStep consists of tether-release reactive step training, volitional trip and slip training, and functional strength training. An open survey comprising 11-point visual analog scale items (0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree) based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was sent to clinicians working in balance and mobility training. Items evaluated the acceptability of ReacStep across seven domains (intervention coherence, perceived efficacy, self-efficacy, ethicality, affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and seven clinicians (169 Physiotherapists, 22 Exercise Physiologists, 11 Occupational Therapists and five others) completed the survey. Respondents considered ReacStep to have good overall acceptability, intervention coherence, effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy (mean acceptability scores >7). However, respondent's ratings of ReacStep's affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost were more variable (mean acceptability scores 2-8) due to concerns about client anxiety, the need for a safety harness and staffing and training requirements. Respondents considered that ReacStep would be more effective and safer to conduct in geriatrics clients compared with neurological clients, and that it would be more appropriate for rehabilitation and private practice settings compared to home settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ReacStep was generally acceptable from the perspective of clinicians who prescribe balance and mobility training in various clinical settings, and was deemed more effective and safer for older clients without neurological conditions, and beneficial in outpatient rehabilitation and private practice settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"29 4","pages":"e2133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinician acceptability of the ReacStep reactive balance training program for fall prevention.\",\"authors\":\"Chrissie Ho, Shivam Sharma, Tiffany Huang, Daniel Cheung, Cameron Hicks, Daniel Treacy, Melanie K Farlie, Freddy M H Lam, Stephen R Lord, Yoshiro Okubo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pri.2133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine if a novel reactive balance training program (ReacStep) designed for clinical settings is acceptable to clinicians prescribing balance and mobility training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ReacStep consists of tether-release reactive step training, volitional trip and slip training, and functional strength training. An open survey comprising 11-point visual analog scale items (0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree) based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was sent to clinicians working in balance and mobility training. Items evaluated the acceptability of ReacStep across seven domains (intervention coherence, perceived efficacy, self-efficacy, ethicality, affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and seven clinicians (169 Physiotherapists, 22 Exercise Physiologists, 11 Occupational Therapists and five others) completed the survey. Respondents considered ReacStep to have good overall acceptability, intervention coherence, effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy (mean acceptability scores >7). However, respondent's ratings of ReacStep's affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost were more variable (mean acceptability scores 2-8) due to concerns about client anxiety, the need for a safety harness and staffing and training requirements. Respondents considered that ReacStep would be more effective and safer to conduct in geriatrics clients compared with neurological clients, and that it would be more appropriate for rehabilitation and private practice settings compared to home settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ReacStep was generally acceptable from the perspective of clinicians who prescribe balance and mobility training in various clinical settings, and was deemed more effective and safer for older clients without neurological conditions, and beneficial in outpatient rehabilitation and private practice settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Research International\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"e2133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Research International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinician acceptability of the ReacStep reactive balance training program for fall prevention.
Aim: To examine if a novel reactive balance training program (ReacStep) designed for clinical settings is acceptable to clinicians prescribing balance and mobility training.
Methods: ReacStep consists of tether-release reactive step training, volitional trip and slip training, and functional strength training. An open survey comprising 11-point visual analog scale items (0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree) based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was sent to clinicians working in balance and mobility training. Items evaluated the acceptability of ReacStep across seven domains (intervention coherence, perceived efficacy, self-efficacy, ethicality, affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost).
Results: Two hundred and seven clinicians (169 Physiotherapists, 22 Exercise Physiologists, 11 Occupational Therapists and five others) completed the survey. Respondents considered ReacStep to have good overall acceptability, intervention coherence, effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy (mean acceptability scores >7). However, respondent's ratings of ReacStep's affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost were more variable (mean acceptability scores 2-8) due to concerns about client anxiety, the need for a safety harness and staffing and training requirements. Respondents considered that ReacStep would be more effective and safer to conduct in geriatrics clients compared with neurological clients, and that it would be more appropriate for rehabilitation and private practice settings compared to home settings.
Conclusions: ReacStep was generally acceptable from the perspective of clinicians who prescribe balance and mobility training in various clinical settings, and was deemed more effective and safer for older clients without neurological conditions, and beneficial in outpatient rehabilitation and private practice settings.
期刊介绍:
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.