Back

Application of tailored motor learning in community-based physiotherapy: a user-centered design and process evaluation of an extended framework

Rothuizen, G.; Jie, L.-J.; Jamin, G.; Wondergem, R.; Braun, S.; Kleynen, M.

2024-06-11 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2024.06.07.24308412 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo develop supplementary knowledge and tools to support the application of motor learning in community-based physiotherapy of geriatric individuals and evaluate physiotherapists experiences of the developed knowledge and tools. DesignA prospective case study comprised of two phases: 1) a user-centered design, and 2) a process evaluation. SettingCommunity-based physiotherapy practices. ParticipantsFive physiotherapists were included for the user-centered design and another eight for the process evaluation. Making a total of thirteen participating physiotherapists during this study. InterventionNot applicable. Main outcome measuresTo evaluate the use of the physiotherapists with the extended framework a biweekly monitor was administered. To evaluate the experience of the physiotherapists with the extended framework three digital questionnaires were administered, and a midterm and final in-person evaluation were organized. ResultsThe user-centered design resulted in a card deck and website with different layers of practical examples and theoretical information. Most of the participating physiotherapists (n = 13) barely used the extended framework during the evaluation period. Commonly reported reasons for not using the extended framework included a lack of time as well as the materials not fitting into the physiotherapists daily routines. They reported, however, that the extended framework increased their motor-learning knowledge and confidence. Some motor-learning strategies were applied much more frequently than others in daily practice. The underlying reasoning regarding the application of some strategies over others varied widely. ConclusionThe results indicate that physiotherapists felt unambiguous regarding the extended framework. The time and energy cost to breaking ones own routines might have outweighed the potential benefits. Future research should aim to determine whether the extended framework applies similarly in different settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.