Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study

Abstract 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. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer [verfasserIn] Kenneth Ong [verfasserIn] Alexander Djuric [verfasserIn] Sarah Munce [verfasserIn] Kristin E. Musselman [verfasserIn] Cesar Marquez-Chin [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation - BMC, 2004, 19(2022), 1, Seite 14
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:19 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; pages:14

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ015553086

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ015553086
003	DE-627
005	20230307032400.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ015553086
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC321-571
100	0		\|a Hope Jervis-Rademeyer \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract 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.
650		4	\|a Brain-computer interface
650		4	\|a Functional electrical stimulation
650		4	\|a Spinal cord injury
650		4	\|a Stroke
650		4	\|a Paralysis
650		4	\|a Rehabilitation
653		0	\|a Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
700	0		\|a Kenneth Ong \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alexander Djuric \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sarah Munce \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kristin E. Musselman \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Cesar Marquez-Chin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation \|d BMC, 2004 \|g 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 \|w (DE-627)461907933 \|w (DE-600)2164377-5 \|x 17430003 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:19 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g pages:14
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2119
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 19 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|h 14

Indexfelder

author_variant	h j r hjr k o ko a d ad s m sm k e m kem c m c cmc
matchkey_str	article:17430003:2022----::hrpssesetvsnsnbanoptrnefctigrducinllcrcltmltoteayoidvdasiigihpee
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Hope Jervis-Rademeyer verfasserin aut Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract 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. Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Kenneth Ong verfasserin aut Alexander Djuric verfasserin aut Sarah Munce verfasserin aut Kristin E. Musselman verfasserin aut Cesar Marquez-Chin verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2022 1 14
spelling	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Hope Jervis-Rademeyer verfasserin aut Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract 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. Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Kenneth Ong verfasserin aut Alexander Djuric verfasserin aut Sarah Munce verfasserin aut Kristin E. Musselman verfasserin aut Cesar Marquez-Chin verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2022 1 14
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Hope Jervis-Rademeyer verfasserin aut Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract 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. Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Kenneth Ong verfasserin aut Alexander Djuric verfasserin aut Sarah Munce verfasserin aut Kristin E. Musselman verfasserin aut Cesar Marquez-Chin verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2022 1 14
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Hope Jervis-Rademeyer verfasserin aut Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract 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. Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Kenneth Ong verfasserin aut Alexander Djuric verfasserin aut Sarah Munce verfasserin aut Kristin E. Musselman verfasserin aut Cesar Marquez-Chin verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2022 1 14
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Hope Jervis-Rademeyer verfasserin aut Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract 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. Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Kenneth Ong verfasserin aut Alexander Djuric verfasserin aut Sarah Munce verfasserin aut Kristin E. Musselman verfasserin aut Cesar Marquez-Chin verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2022 1 14
language	English
source	In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14
sourceStr	In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 19(2022), 1, Seite 14 volume:19 year:2022 number:1 pages:14
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Brain-computer interface Functional electrical stimulation Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer @@aut@@ Kenneth Ong @@aut@@ Alexander Djuric @@aut@@ Sarah Munce @@aut@@ Kristin E. Musselman @@aut@@ Cesar Marquez-Chin @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	461907933
id	DOAJ015553086
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015553086</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307032400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015553086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC321-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hope Jervis-Rademeyer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Brain-computer interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Functional electrical stimulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord injury</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stroke</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Paralysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kenneth Ong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alexander Djuric</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sarah Munce</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kristin E. Musselman</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cesar Marquez-Chin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2022), 1, Seite 14</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)461907933</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2164377-5</subfield><subfield code="x">17430003</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">14</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer
spellingShingle	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer misc RC321-571 misc Brain-computer interface misc Functional electrical stimulation misc Spinal cord injury misc Stroke misc Paralysis misc Rehabilitation misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
authorStr	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)461907933
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC321-571
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	17430003
topic_title	RC321-571 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 Spinal cord injury Stroke Paralysis Rehabilitation
topic	misc RC321-571 misc Brain-computer interface misc Functional electrical stimulation misc Spinal cord injury misc Stroke misc Paralysis misc Rehabilitation misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
topic_unstemmed	misc RC321-571 misc Brain-computer interface misc Functional electrical stimulation misc Spinal cord injury misc Stroke misc Paralysis misc Rehabilitation misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
topic_browse	misc RC321-571 misc Brain-computer interface misc Functional electrical stimulation misc Spinal cord injury misc Stroke misc Paralysis misc Rehabilitation misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
hierarchy_parent_id	461907933
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5
title	Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ015553086 (DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431
title_full	Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
author_sort	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer
journal	Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
journalStr	Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	14
author_browse	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer Kenneth Ong Alexander Djuric Sarah Munce Kristin E. Musselman Cesar Marquez-Chin
container_volume	19
class	RC321-571
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Hope Jervis-Rademeyer
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
callnumber	RC321-571
title_auth	Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
abstract	Abstract 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.
abstractGer	Abstract 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.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract 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.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2 https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431 https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003
remote_bool	true
author2	Kenneth Ong Alexander Djuric Sarah Munce Kristin E. Musselman Cesar Marquez-Chin
author2Str	Kenneth Ong Alexander Djuric Sarah Munce Kristin E. Musselman Cesar Marquez-Chin
ppnlink	461907933
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2
callnumber-a	RC321-571
up_date	2024-07-03T15:43:01.195Z
_version_	1803573139808976896
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015553086</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307032400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015553086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC321-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hope Jervis-Rademeyer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Brain-computer interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Functional electrical stimulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord injury</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stroke</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Paralysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kenneth Ong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alexander Djuric</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sarah Munce</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kristin E. Musselman</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cesar Marquez-Chin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2022), 1, Seite 14</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)461907933</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2164377-5</subfield><subfield code="x">17430003</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5e58b40b6efc44d7bcb89b4d75bc9431</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01107-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">14</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3980913

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Therapists’ perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?