Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many stroke survivors do not receive the optimal levels of personalised therapy needed to support their recovery. Rehabilitation technology could offer a means to provide personalised guidance to stroke survivors struggling to access rehabilitation through other means.
AIMS The aim of this study was to explore stroke survivor and therapist experiences of stroke rehabilitation post discharge into the community and their thoughts about the potential use of markerless, 3D motion capture technology which could support rehabilitation, to contribute towards a better understanding of how technology can support stroke rehabilitation.
METHODS Focus groups and interviews were conducted with stroke survivors and therapists and the transcripts analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS Six themes were identified across the data: access and continuity of care for stroke survivors in the community, stroke survivor confusion and lack of education impacting service navigation and ability to access rehabilitation services, stroke survivor access to non-NHS/private facilities, impact of Covid on stroke services, potential use of technology to support post-stroke rehabilitation in the community and, stroke survivors’ willingness to try new technology.
CONCLUSIONS Stroke survivors and therapists identified problems with stroke survivors accessing rehabilitation services but were positive about the potential for technology to support stroke rehabilitation.
Competing Interest Statement
Professor Anand Pandyan has received unrestricted educational support from Allergan and Biometrics Ltd., and Honorarium payments from Allergan, Biometrics Ltd., Ipsen, and Merz. These companies are unlikely to be affected by the research reported in this paper. All other authors have no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Stroke Association and MedCity.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received a favourable ethical opinion from Keele University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Data Availability
Data in the present study are not available.
