In search of Kipling’s six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation: within participant case-crossover experiment nested within a web-based questionnaire
Creators: name: Hayward, K. S.
name: Jolliffe, L.
name: Churilov, L.
name: Herrmann, A.
name: Cloud, G. C.
name: Lannin, N. A.
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2020
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Pharmacology
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: 69999 Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: 80699 Information Systems not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Computer and information sciences
subject: Hematology
subject: 110309 Infectious Diseases
subject: FOS: Health sciences

description: In search of Kipling’s six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation after stroke, we sought to investigate clinicians’ perspective of <i>when</i> and <i>where</i> to begin therapy, <i>how much</i> and <i>what</i> therapy to provide, and <i>who</i> and <i>why</i> (or not) to provide therapy. <b>Materials &amp; methods:</b> Within-participant case cross-over experiments were nested within an anonymous web-based questionnaire (21 questions, three cases). Graph theory-based voting to produce ranked ordered lists and mixed-effect logistic regression were performed. In total, 225 Australian stroke clinicians responded: 53% occupational therapists, 61% working in acute/inpatient stroke setting. Most respondents indicated they did not have a protocol/expectation regarding when (62%), how much (84%) or what (60%) therapy to provide in their setting. Respondents ranked 24-h to 7-days post-stroke as the optimal time to commence therapy, and 30- to 60-min per day as the optimal dose to provide. Within-participant experiments demonstrated that greater motor recovery as time progressed increased the odds of offering therapy, while lack of motor recovery, shoulder pain, neurological decline and sole therapist reduced the odds. We need to develop an evidence base concerning Kipling’s six honest serving men and equip clinicians with clinical decision-making skills aligned with this focus.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMost clinicians did not have access to a protocol / clinical pathway which defines when, how much and what upper limb therapy to provide after stroke, which may be improved by providing individual clinicians with organisational support to make therapy decisions.To improve the personalisation of upper limb rehabilitation in clinical practice, we need to understand <i>when</i> and <i>where</i> after stroke to begin therapy, <i>how much</i> and <i>what</i> therapy to provide, as well as <i>who</i> and <i>why</i> (clinical decision-making) to provide therapy.Clinicians perceive clinical trials as successful if the therapy can demonstrate recovery that is greater than a minimal clinical important difference (MCID). Most clinicians did not have access to a protocol / clinical pathway which defines when, how much and what upper limb therapy to provide after stroke, which may be improved by providing individual clinicians with organisational support to make therapy decisions. To improve the personalisation of upper limb rehabilitation in clinical practice, we need to understand <i>when</i> and <i>where</i> after stroke to begin therapy, <i>how much</i> and <i>what</i> therapy to provide, as well as <i>who</i> and <i>why</i> (clinical decision-making) to provide therapy. Clinicians perceive clinical trials as successful if the therapy can demonstrate recovery that is greater than a minimal clinical important difference (MCID).