Therapists' perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study.
Brain-computer interface
Functional electrical stimulation
Paralysis
Rehabilitation
Spinal cord injury
Stroke
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 11 2022
23 11 2022
Historique:
received:
03
03
2022
accepted:
31
10
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
26
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Brain computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy (BCI-FEST) has shown promise as a therapy to improve upper extremity function for individuals who have had a stroke or spinal cord injury. The next step is to determine whether BCI-FEST could be used clinically as part of broader therapy practice. To do this, we need to understand therapists' opinions on using the BCI-FEST and what limitations potentially exist. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study to understand the perspectives of therapists on their experiences delivering BCI-FEST and the feasibility of large-scale clinical implementation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) who have delivered BCI-FEST. Interview questions were developed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model of behaviour change. COM-B components were used to inform deductive content analysis while other subthemes were detected using an inductive approach. We interviewed PTs (n = 3) and OTs (n = 3), with 360 combined hours of experience delivering BCI-FEST. Components and subcomponents of the COM-B determined deductively included: (1) Capability (physical, psychological), (2) Opportunity (physical, social), and (3) Motivation (automatic, reflective). Under each deductive subcomponent, one to two inductive subthemes were identified (n = 8). Capability and Motivation were perceived as strengths, and therefore supported therapists' decisions to use BCI-FEST. Under Opportunity, for both subcomponents (physical, social), therapists recognized the need for more support to clinically implement BCI-FEST. We identified facilitating and limiting factors to BCI-FEST delivery in a clinical setting according to clinicians. These factors implied that education, training, a support network or mentors, and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., scheduling) should be targeted as interventions. The results of this study may help to inform future development of new technologies and interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Brain computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy (BCI-FEST) has shown promise as a therapy to improve upper extremity function for individuals who have had a stroke or spinal cord injury. The next step is to determine whether BCI-FEST could be used clinically as part of broader therapy practice. To do this, we need to understand therapists' opinions on using the BCI-FEST and what limitations potentially exist. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study to understand the perspectives of therapists on their experiences delivering BCI-FEST and the feasibility of large-scale clinical implementation.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) who have delivered BCI-FEST. Interview questions were developed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model of behaviour change. COM-B components were used to inform deductive content analysis while other subthemes were detected using an inductive approach.
RESULTS
We interviewed PTs (n = 3) and OTs (n = 3), with 360 combined hours of experience delivering BCI-FEST. Components and subcomponents of the COM-B determined deductively included: (1) Capability (physical, psychological), (2) Opportunity (physical, social), and (3) Motivation (automatic, reflective). Under each deductive subcomponent, one to two inductive subthemes were identified (n = 8). Capability and Motivation were perceived as strengths, and therefore supported therapists' decisions to use BCI-FEST. Under Opportunity, for both subcomponents (physical, social), therapists recognized the need for more support to clinically implement BCI-FEST.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified facilitating and limiting factors to BCI-FEST delivery in a clinical setting according to clinicians. These factors implied that education, training, a support network or mentors, and restructuring the physical environment (e.g., scheduling) should be targeted as interventions. The results of this study may help to inform future development of new technologies and interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36419166
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2
pmc: PMC9684970
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
127Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
Pays : Canada
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009 Dec;33(4):203-11
pubmed: 20208465
Phys Ther. 2006 Oct;86(10):1406-25
pubmed: 17012645
Int J Neurosci. 2014 Jun;124(6):403-15
pubmed: 24079396
Nat Commun. 2018 Jun 20;9(1):2421
pubmed: 29925890
Eur Neurol. 2001;45(1):28-33
pubmed: 11150837
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2013 Aug;10(3):129-39
pubmed: 23796066
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Mar;99(3):e35-e40
pubmed: 30768447
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505
PM R. 2018 Sep;10(9 Suppl 2):S165-S173
pubmed: 30269803
Neuromodulation. 2022 Jan 14;:
pubmed: 35088740
J Psychosom Res. 2012 Sep;73(3):205-10
pubmed: 22850261
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Feb 25;18(1):44
pubmed: 33632262
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 29;19(1):530
pubmed: 31358002
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Ann Neurol. 2013 Jul;74(1):100-8
pubmed: 23494615
Occup Ther Int. 2016 Jun;23(2):175-85
pubmed: 26876690
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 May;88(5):638-45
pubmed: 17466734
Neuromodulation. 2022 Dec;25(8):1280-1288
pubmed: 34031937
J Rehabil Med. 2018 Jan 10;50(1):52-58
pubmed: 28949370
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005 Summer;12(3):58-65
pubmed: 16110428
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 09;11(2):e0149024
pubmed: 26859296
J Spinal Cord Med. 2021;44(sup1):S203-S214
pubmed: 34779740
Spinal Cord. 2008 Jan;46(1):21-5
pubmed: 17406379
Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2021 Mar 19;7(1):24
pubmed: 33741900
Physiother Can. 1995 Winter;47(1):30-4
pubmed: 10140421
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2015 Jan;39(1):3-14
pubmed: 25415550
Occup Ther Int. 2016 Mar;23(1):39-47
pubmed: 26301519
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):S225-39
pubmed: 18230848
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Feb;80(2):173-8
pubmed: 10025492
J Neural Eng. 2016 Dec;13(6):065002
pubmed: 27739405
Spinal Cord. 2013 Feb;51(2):103-8
pubmed: 23069767
Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2022 Apr 5;8(1):39
pubmed: 35383140
Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2009;15(2):112-6
pubmed: 19489091
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 May 16;15(1):40
pubmed: 29769082
Physiother Theory Pract. 2022 Sep;38(9):1126-1134
pubmed: 33026895
JAMA Surg. 2021 Jan 1;156(1):42-49
pubmed: 33052407
Phys Ther. 2011 Feb;91(2):210-24
pubmed: 21212372
Case Rep Neurol Med. 2016;2016:9146213
pubmed: 27882256
Spinal Cord. 2020 Jul;58(7):778-786
pubmed: 31969687
Biomed Eng Online. 2020 Nov 4;19(1):81
pubmed: 33148270
Front Neurol. 2018 Dec 04;9:1061
pubmed: 30564190
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970