Stroke patients' utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home: A multiple case study realistic evaluation

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Parker, Jack ^a   Mawson, Susan ^a   Mountain, Gail ^a   Nasr, Nasrin ^a   Zheng, Huiru ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COMPUTER SYSTEM; EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF CARE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGED; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CARE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STROKE;

EID: 84903709858     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-46     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Preventing stroke: saving lives around the world. Strong K, Mathers C, Bonita R, Lancet Neurol 2007 6 182 187 (Pubitemid 46097543)
2. Department of Health, National Stroke Strategy London: Crown Copyright 2007 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov. uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyandguidance/ dh-081062
3. Cost-Effectiveness of stroke care followed by early supported discharge. Saka Ö Serra V, Samyshkin Y, McGuire A, Wolfe C, Stroke 2009 40 24 29
4. Recent advances in stroke rehabilitation. Kalra L, Ratan R, Stroke 2006 38 235 237
5. Motor learning: Its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Krakauer JW, Curr Opin Neurol 2006 19 84 90 (Pubitemid 43172710)
6. Upper limb recovery after stroke: the stroke survivors' perspective. Barker RN, Brauer SG, Disabil Rehabil 2005 27 20 1213 1223 (Pubitemid 41823745)
7. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A, Lancet Neurol 2009 8 741 754
8. Stroke care 2: stroke rehabilitation. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G, Lancet 2011 377 1693 1702
9. Party ISW, National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke: Improving Motor Control London: Royal College of Physicians 4 2012
10. DoH, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS London: Crown Copyright 2010 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment-data/file/213823/dh-117794.pdf
11. DoH, Innovation, Health and Wealth: Accelerating Adoption and Diffusion in the NHS London: Department of Health 2011
12. Bunt L, Harris M, The Human Factor: How Transforming Healthcare to Involve the Public can Save Money and Save Lives London: NESTA 2009
13. Strategies to enhance chronic disease self-management: How can we apply this to stroke? Jones F, Disabil Rehabil 2006 28 13 841 847
14. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008 22 111 121 (Pubitemid 351287594)
15. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M, Top Stroke Rehabil 2007 14 52 61 (Pubitemid 46651524)
16. The SMART Project: A User Led Approach to Developing Applications for Domiciliary Stroke Rehabilitation. Mountain GA, Ware PM, Hammerton J, Mawson SJ, Zheng J, Davies R, Black N, Zhou H, Hu H, Harris N, Eccleston C, Designing Accessible Technology London: Springer, Clarkson P, Langdon J, Robinson P, 2006 135 144
17. Developing and testing a telerehabilitation system for people following stroke: issues of usability. Mountain G, Wilson S, Eccleston C, Mawson S, Hammerton J, Ware T, Zheng H, Davies R, Black N, Harris N, Stone T, Hu H, J Eng Des 2010 21 2 223 236
18. The SMART rehabilitation system for stroke self-management: issues and challenges for evidence-based health technology research. Mawson S, Mountain G, J Phys Ther Educ 2011 25 1 48 53
19. An Investigation into Stroke Patients' Utilisation of Feedback from Computer-Based Technology. Parker J, Mountain GA, Hammerton J, Designing Inclusive Interactions London: Springer, Langdon P, Clarkson J, Robinson P, 2010 167 176
20. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M, Med Biol Eng Comput 2011 49 1103 1118
21. Augmented Feedback. Magill RA, Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications London: McGraw Hill 8 2007 331 359
22. The smart consortium. [ http://www.thesmartconsortium.org ]
23. Developing a personalised self-management rehabilitation system for post-stroke rehabilitation; utilising a user-centred design methodology. Mawson S, Nasr N, Parker J, Mountain G, Hawley M, Zheng H, Davies R, Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013 Early Online: 1-8
24. Home stroke rehabilitation for the upper limbs. Willmann RD, Lanfermann G, Saini P, Timmermans A, Te Vrugt J, Winter S, IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007 4015 4017
25. Inertial sensors for motion detection of human upper limbs. Zhou H, Hu H, Sens Rev 2007 27 2 151 158 (Pubitemid 46516156)
26. Parker J, Stroke Patients' Utilisation of Extrinsic Feedback from Computer-Based Technology in the Home Sheffield UK: Sheffield Hallam University PhD thesis. 2012
27. Pawson R, Tilley N, Realistic Evaluation London: Sage 1997
28. Pawson R, Tilley N, Realist Evaluation 2004 Retrieved from: http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE-chapter.pdf
29. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Neurological Rehabilitation; Optimising Motor Performance Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann 1998
30. Enhancing physical activity and brain reorganization after stroke. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Neurol Res Int 2011 doi:10.1155/2011/515938
31. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Kleim JA, Jones TA, J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008 51 225 S239
32. The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text. Fontana A, Frey JH, Handbook of Qualitative Research Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, 2 2000 645 672
33. Vaughn S, Schumm JS, Singagub J, Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology London: Sage 1996
34. Interviewing. Taylor CM, Qualitative Research in Healthcare London: Open University Press, Holloway I, 2005 37 53
35. Qualitative Interviews. Britten N, Qualitative Research in Healthcare London: Open University Press, Holloway I, 2006 12 20
36. Unstructured and Structured Observational Studies. Bowling A, Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Open University Press 3 2009 383 405
37. Observing Method: Recognising the Significance of Belief, Discipline, Position and Documentation in Observational Studies. Wallace S, Qualitative Research in Healthcare London: Open University Press, Holloway I, 2005 71 85
38. Stake R, The art of Case Study Research Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1995
39. Yin RK, Case Study Research: Design and Methods London: SAGE Publications 3 2003
40. The Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test: a short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for nonspecialists. Enderby PM, Wood VA, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R, Int J Rehabil Med 1987 8 166 170
41. 'Mini-mental state'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR, J Psychiatr Res 1975 12 189 98
42. An extended activities of daily living index for stroke patients. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB, Clin Rehabil 1987 1 301 305
43. A comparison of the responsiveness of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, London handicap scale and SF-36. Harwood RH, Ebrahim S, Disabil Rehabil 2000 22 17 786 793 (Pubitemid 32007717)
44. The validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Harwood RH, Ebrahim S, Disabil Rehabil 2002 24 7 371 377 (Pubitemid 34520714)
45. Qualitative Methods in Health Research. Pope C, Mays N, Qualitative Research in Healthcare Oxford UK: BMJ Books; Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Pope C, Mays N, 3 2006 1 11
46. Miles MB, Huberman MA, Qualitative Data Analysis California: Sage 1998
47. Patton M, Utilization-Focused Evaluation Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications 2008
48. A realistic evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K, Implement Sci 2010 5 38
49. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadershiop in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham I, Harvey G, Martin G, McCormack BG, Staniszewska S, Thompson C, Implement Sci 2011 6 74 Available at: http://www.implentationscience.com/content/6/1/74
50. The Mechanisms and Neurophysiology of Recovery from Stroke. Nudo RJ, Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation New York: Demos Medical, Stein J, Harvey RL, Macko RF, Winstein CJ, Zorowitz RD, 2009 123 134
51. A review of the evidence underpinning the use of visual and auditory feedback for computer technology in post-stroke upper-limb rehabilitation. Parker J, Mountain GA, Hammerton J, Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011 6 465 472
52. Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? A systematic review of the evidence. Subramanian SK, Massie CL, Malcolm MP, Levin MF, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010 24 2 113 124
53. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: What is the evidence? Van Vliet P, Wulf G, Disabil Rehabil 2006 28 13-14 831 840
54. The Nature and Structure of Self-Efficacy. Bandura A, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, Bandura A, 1997
55. Bandura A, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc 1986
56. Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes and mechanisms. Lorig K, Holman H, Ann Behav Med 2003 26 1 1 7
57. PhysioTools. [ http://www.physiotools.com ]
58. MRC, Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance London: Medical Research Council 2008