Comparing the Impact of an Implicit Learning Approach With Standard Care on Recovery of Mobility Following Stroke: Protocol for a Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, of an IMPlicit learning approach versus standard care, on recovery of mobility following stroke (IMPS)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the delivery of rehabilitation using implicit motor learning principles in an acute stroke setting.

DESIGN

Pilot, assessor-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative evaluation.

SETTING

Eight inpatient stroke units, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

People within 14 days of stroke onset, presenting with lower limb hemiplegia.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants at control clusters received usual care. Participants at intervention clusters received rehabilitation using an Implicit Learning Approach (ILA); primarily consisting of reduced frequency instructions/feedback, and promotion of an external focus of attention. Video recording was used to understand the ability of intervention site therapists to adhere to the implicit learning principles, and to compare differences between groups.

MEASURES

Ability to recruit and retain clusters/participants; suitability and acceptability of data collection processes; appropriateness of fidelity monitoring methods; and appropriateness of chosen outcome measures.

RESULTS

Eight stroke units participated, with four assigned to each group (intervention/control). Fifty-one participants were enrolled (intervention group 21; control group 30). Mean time since stroke was 6 days (SD 3.42; 0-14); mean age was 73 years (SD 14, 25-94). Of those approached to take part, 72% agreed. We found clear differences between groups with respect to the frequency and type of instructional statement. The ILA was acceptable to both patients and therapists.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to evaluate the application and effectiveness of motor learning principles within acute stroke rehabilitation, using a cluster randomised design. A larger study is required to evaluate the benefits of each approach; we provide a range of sample size estimates required for this.

Understanding implementation of a complex intervention in a stroke rehabilitation research trial: A qualitative evaluation using Normalisation Process Theory

BACKGROUND

The Implicit Learning in Stroke study was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, investigating the use of different motor learning strategies in acute stroke rehabilitation. Participating Stroke Units (n = 8) were from the South East/West regions of the UK, with the experimental intervention (implicit learning) being delivered by clinical teams. It required therapists to change how they gave instructions and feedback to patients during rehabilitation. This paper reports the processes underpinning implementation of the implicit learning intervention. The evaluation aimed to i) understand how therapists made sense of, engaged with and interpreted the effects of the intervention; ii) compare this to the experience reported by patients; iii) extrapolate learning of broader relevance to the design and conduct of research involving complex interventions in stroke rehabilitation.

METHODS

Qualitative evaluation, with data collected through focus groups with clinical staff (n = 20) and semi structured interviews with people with stroke (n = 19). Mixed inductive and theory driven analysis, underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

How therapists made sense of and experienced the intervention impacted how it was implemented. The intervention was delivered by individual therapists, and was influenced by their individual values, beliefs and concerns. However, how teams worked together to build a shared (team) understanding, also played a key role. Teams with a more "flexible" interpretation, reported the view that the intervention could have benefits in a wide range of scenarios. Those with a more fixed, "rule based" interpretation, found it harder to implement, and perceived the benefits to be more limited. Therapists' concerns that the intervention may impair therapeutic relationships and patient learning were not reflected in how patients experienced it.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing practice, whether in a research study or in the "real world", is complex. Understanding the process of implementation is crucial to effective research delivery. Implementation frameworks facilitate understanding, and subsequently the systematic and iterative development of strategies for this to be addressed. How teams (rather than individuals) work together is central to how complex interventions are understood and implemented. It is possible that new complex interventions work best in contexts where there are 'flexible' cultures. Researchers should consider, and potentially measure this, before they can effectively implement and evaluate an intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials - NCT03792126.

Development of lower limb training interventions that promote an external focus of attention in people with stroke: a modified Delphi survey

OBJECTIVE

To produce guidance and validated examples of tasks that promote an external focus of attention, for use in lower limb rehabilitation in an inpatient stroke care setting.

DESIGN

Electronic survey, using e-Delphi methodology.

PARTICIPANTS

A multi-professional expert panel of 14 clinicians and researchers, with expertise in stroke rehabilitation and/or motor learning.

METHOD

Each survey round consisted of two parts: 1) classification of specific exercise examples, shown using video and 2) the categorization of specific tratement adjuncts. The panel was asked to comment on: likely focus of attention of the performer; instructions that would promote an external focus of attention; and how the task set-up could be modified to promote an external focus of attention. Rounds 2 and 3 included a summary of results from the previous round, and revised/new examples. The panel were also asked to state their level of agreement with a series of statements that arose from the free text. Three rounds of survey were completed and the a priori threshold for agreement was set at 80%.

RESULTS

Eighteen iterations of exercises were presented, and 12 were accepted as promoting an external focus of attention. In addition, six additional statements were generated based on open responses, leading to further specific guidance on facilitating an external focus of attention in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly used rehabilitation exercises can be adapted to promote an external focus of attention, by altering the therapist's use of instructions and/or altering the task set up. Treatment principles and examples of tasks that promote an external focus have been produced.