Kara K Patterson1, Nicole Gallant2, Tracey Ormiston2, Chad Patience3, Mandy Whitechurch2, Avril Mansfield4, Janet Brown2. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto; School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ont. 2. School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ont. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. 4. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a newly developed questionnaire to assess the influence of study design on participation in gait rehabilitation research in a pilot test with individuals with stroke. A secondary objective was to investigate the relationship between participation in gait rehabilitation research and social and clinical factors of interest after stroke. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed with expert opinion and guidance from related previous research. The questionnaire was pilot tested in a group of 21 people with stroke, and social and clinical factors (including gait function) were collected. Gait function was assessed using a pressure-sensitive mat; social and clinical characteristics were extracted from patient charts. Correlations were performed to investigate relationships between questionnaire responses and gait function, motor impairment, and chronicity; t-tests were used to examine response differences between people with a caregiver at home and those without. RESULTS: A total of 21 people with stroke completed the questionnaire without difficulty; mean completion time was 7.2 (SD 3.5) minutes, with a range of responses across participants. Borderline significant associations were found between gait function and the number of studies in which a person would participate and between stroke chronicity and the location of studies in which a person would participate. CONCLUSIONS: A questionnaire to investigate the influence of study design factors on participation in rehabilitation research is feasible for administration in the post-stroke population and has potential to inform the design of future studies.
PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a newly developed questionnaire to assess the influence of study design on participation in gait rehabilitation research in a pilot test with individuals with stroke. A secondary objective was to investigate the relationship between participation in gait rehabilitation research and social and clinical factors of interest after stroke. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed with expert opinion and guidance from related previous research. The questionnaire was pilot tested in a group of 21 people with stroke, and social and clinical factors (including gait function) were collected. Gait function was assessed using a pressure-sensitive mat; social and clinical characteristics were extracted from patient charts. Correlations were performed to investigate relationships between questionnaire responses and gait function, motor impairment, and chronicity; t-tests were used to examine response differences between people with a caregiver at home and those without. RESULTS: A total of 21 people with stroke completed the questionnaire without difficulty; mean completion time was 7.2 (SD 3.5) minutes, with a range of responses across participants. Borderline significant associations were found between gait function and the number of studies in which a person would participate and between stroke chronicity and the location of studies in which a person would participate. CONCLUSIONS: A questionnaire to investigate the influence of study design factors on participation in rehabilitation research is feasible for administration in the post-stroke population and has potential to inform the design of future studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
gait; rehabilitation; research design; research participation; stroke; surveys
Authors: Nancy K Latham; Diane U Jette; Mary Slavin; Lorie G Richards; Adam Procino; Randall J Smout; Susan D Horn Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Giselle Corbie-Smith; Catherine M Viscoli; Walter N Kernan; Lawrence M Brass; Philip Sarrel; Ralph I Horwitz Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: C Gowland; P Stratford; M Ward; J Moreland; W Torresin; S Van Hullenaar; J Sanford; S Barreca; B Vanspall; N Plews Journal: Stroke Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S E Kasner; A Del Giudice; S Rosenberg; M Sheen; J M Luciano; B L Cucchiara; S R Messé; L H Sansing; J M Baren Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lucy Busija; Lingwei William Tao; Danny Liew; Louise Weir; Bernard Yan; Gabriel Silver; Stephen Davis; Peter J Hand Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 2.762