Back

Improving walking after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: co-design and single-arm feasibility trial of the STructured Rehabilitation and InDividualised Exercise and Education (STRIDE) programme

McIlroy, S.; Bearne, L.; McCarter, A.; McPherson, C.; Chaplin, H.; Brighton, L. J.; Weinman, J.; Norton, S.

2026-03-31 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.03.28.26349602 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can cause pain and severe walking limitation. Although surgery aims to improve walking, many patients do not achieve clinically meaningful gains. Rehabilitation can improve outcomes, yet existing programmes lack robust evidence and theoretical underpinning. This study aimed to (1) co-design a theory-informed rehabilitation programme to improve walking after LSS surgery, and (2) evaluate feasibility of conducting a future trial and acceptability of the intervention. Methods: A multi-methods study included intervention co-design followed by a single-arm feasibility study. Co-design used an adapted Experience-Based Co-Design approach with patients, carers, and healthcare professionals (n=39), integrating the Behaviour Change Wheel. This resulted in STructured Rehabilitation and InDividualised Exercise and Education (STRIDE), delivered over 12-week pre- and 12-weeks post-surgery, targeting knowledge, expectations, perceived control, physical capability, and fears. Adults aged [≥]50 years awaiting LSS surgery were recruited to a before-after feasibility study. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention. Acceptability was assessed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire (0-5 (high acceptability)) and focus groups. Clinical outcomes measured at baseline, post-prehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation included 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and mean daily step count over 7 days. Results: Fifteen of 31 eligible participants were recruited (48%; mean age 70 years), with 80% retained to study end (2 decided against surgery, 1 unable to complete final assessment). Acceptability was high (median 5/5, IQR 0). Participants valued the personalised, supportive approach and reported improved motivation and preparation for surgery, though travel was burdensome. Small pre-operative and moderate-to-large post-operative improvements were observed in 6MWD (+49.9 m and +81.6 m) and daily step count (+868 and +1405 steps/day). Conclusions: This co-designed, physiotherapy-led, behaviour-change rehabilitation programme was acceptable to participants, with encouraging recruitment, retention, and signals of improved walking following LSS surgery. The findings support progression to a future trial.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
19.0%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.6%
4
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
7
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
9
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
10
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
12
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
15
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
19
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
21
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
22
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
28
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
29
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
30
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%