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。

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION Physiotherapy Research International Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1002/pri.2133
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究为临床环境设计的新型反应性平衡训练计划(ReacStep)能否被开具平衡和移动能力训练处方的临床医生接受:ReacStep由系绳释放反应性台阶训练、自愿绊倒和滑倒训练以及功能性力量训练组成。根据可接受性理论框架,我们向从事平衡和移动能力训练的临床医生发送了一份开放式调查,其中包括 11 点视觉模拟量表项目(0 = 非常不同意到 10 = 非常同意)。这些项目评估了 ReacStep 在七个领域(干预一致性、感知功效、自我效能、道德性、情感态度、负担和机会成本)的可接受性:27 名临床医生(169 名物理治疗师、22 名运动生理学家、11 名职业治疗师和 5 名其他人员)完成了调查。受访者认为 ReacStep 在整体可接受性、干预一致性、有效性、道德性和自我效能方面表现良好(平均可接受性评分大于 7 分)。然而,受访者对 ReacStep 的情感态度、负担和机会成本的评价则变化较大(平均可接受性得分 2-8 分),原因是担心客户焦虑、需要安全绳以及人员配备和培训要求。受访者认为,与神经科病人相比,ReacStep 对老年病病人更有效、更安全,与家庭环境相比,它更适合康复和私人诊所环境:从临床医生的角度来看,ReacStep 在不同的临床环境中被普遍接受,他们认为 ReacStep 对没有神经系统疾病的老年患者更有效、更安全,并且对门诊康复和私人诊所环境有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
53
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.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Efficacy of Action Observation Therapy on Gait, Balance and Mobility Impairments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Reliability, Concurrent Validity, Responsiveness and Measurement Error of the Portuguese Version of Comprehensive Motor Coordination Scale in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease. Sexual Function and Quality of Life in Individuals Post Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1