ABSTRACT
Background Gait training within stroke rehabilitation can be applied using implicit or explicit motor learning approaches. Explicit learning is a more conscious approach to learning, in which many detailed instructions about the movement are provided to the learner. Implicit learning strives to take place in a more automatic manner, without much knowledge of the underlying facts and rules of the movement.
Objective To evaluate whether the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions for people after stroke delivered in a randomized controlled trial were performed as intended (fidelity) and to report the therapist and participant experiences with regard to feasibility.
Methods Fidelity was assessed by evaluating the dose delivered (number of therapy sessions) and content of instructions (explicit rules) that were collected through the therapist logs and audio recordings of the training sessions. The therapist and participant experiences were assessed by means of self-developed questionnaires.
Results 79 people were included of which seven people (9%) dropped out. The remaining participants all received the required minimum of seven sessions. Overall therapists adhered to the intervention guideline. On average 5.2 and 0.4 explicit rules were used within the explicit and implicit group respectively. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility but frequent comments were made by the therapists regarding “therapy time restrictions” and “tendency of the participants to develop explicit rules”.
Conclusion Delivery of the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions were successful in terms of fidelity. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility of the intervention.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This is the proces evaluation of a randomised controlled trial that is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (Trial NL6133 (NTR6272)).
Clinical Protocols
https://www.researchprotocols.org/2018/5/e142/
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek SIA (RAAKPRO; grant number 2014-01-49PRO).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Background: Gait training within stroke rehabilitation can be applied using implicit or explicit motor learning approaches. Explicit learning is a more conscious approach to learning, in which many detailed instructions about the movement are provided to the learner. Implicit learning strives to take place in a more automatic manner, without much knowledge of the underlying facts and rules of the movement. Objective: To evaluate whether the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions for people after stroke delivered in a randomized controlled trial were performed as intended (fidelity) and to report the therapist and participant experiences with regard to feasibility. Methods: Fidelity was assessed by evaluating the dose delivered (number of therapy sessions) and content of instructions (explicit rules) that were collected through the therapist logs and audio recordings of the training sessions. The therapist and participant experiences were assessed by means of self-developed questionnaires. Results: 79 people were included of which seven people (9%) dropped out. The remaining participants all received the required minimum of seven sessions. Overall therapists adhered to the intervention guideline. On average 5.2 and 0.4 explicit rules were used within the explicit and implicit group respectively. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility but frequent comments were made by the therapists regarding 'therapy time restrictions' and 'tendency of the participants to develop explicit rules'. Conclusion: Delivery of the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions were successful in terms of fidelity. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility of the intervention.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon a reasonable request.
