Lived experiences of physical therapists treating traumatic knee injury using integrated psychological training (MOTIFS): a qualitative interview study

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics of interviewed physical therapists from the care-as-usual and MOTIFS conditions.

	MOTIFS (n = 6)	Care-as-usual (n = 8)
Gender	3 Female (50%)	5 Female (63%)
Age (SD)	40.8 (9.3) years	39.8 (10.0) years
Clinical Experience (SD)	16.3 (9.1) years	14.6 (7.4) years
Interview Duration (SD)	19.4 (5.0) min	27.0 (10.6) min

MOTIFS = Motor Imagery to Facilitate Sensorimotor Relearning; SD = Standard Deviation; min = minutes.

Figure 1. Participant flow diagram. *Approached physical therapists pre-screened for eligibility § n=2 interviews not included in analysis due to reaching data saturation MOTIFS = MOT or Imagery to Facilitate Sensorimotor re-learning.

Figure 2. Major Theme regarding physical therapists’ perceptions of rehabilitation training, along with more detailed subordinate themes.

Figure 3. Major theme regarding care-as-usual physical therapists’ perceptions of rehabilitation training and more detailed subordinate themes.

Table A1. Coding comparison analysis progression through versions of the generated conceptual models.

Conceptual Model	Coder Comparison	Version 1	Version 2	Version 3	Version 4	Final Model
MOTIFS	Coder 1- Coder 2	k = 0.37	k = 0.67	k = 0.70	N/A	k = 0.70
	Coder 1- Coder 3	N/A	k = 0.43	k = 0.43	N/A	k = 0.93
	Coder 2- Coder 3	N/A	N/A	X*	N/A	k = 0.68
Care-as-Usual	Coder 1- Coder 2	k = 0.46	k = 0.64	k = 0.64	k = 0.67	k = 0.71
	Coder 1- Coder 3	N/A	k = 0.51	k = 0.76	k = 0.77	k = 0.77
	Coder 2- Coder 3	N/A	X*	k = 0.56	k = 0.59	k = 0.64

The Final Model is the result of discussing the previous version, with no significant changes to the model.

MOTIFS = Motor Imagery to Facilitate Sensorimotor Re-Learning; k = Cohen’s Kappa, in which agreement was classified as none (k ≤ 0), none to slight (k = 0.01–0.20), fair (k = 0.21–0.40), moderate (k = 0.41–0.60), substantial (0.61–0.80), and perfect (k = 0.81–1); N/A = Not Applicable – coding comparison not available or not necessary; X* – Coding not compared due to unacceptable agreement between coders

Table A2. Description of data collection and analysis process, including Coder roles and involvement.

	Coder 1	Coder 2	Coder 3
Participant Recruitment	X
Interview	X
Transcription	X
Inductive Coding	X
Generation of Preliminary Conceptual Model	X
Deductive Coding*		X
Coding Comparison and Discussion (Coder 1 – Coder 2)*	X
Deductive Coding*			X
Coding Comparison and Discussion (Coder 1 – Coder 3)*	X
Coding Comparison and Discussion (Coder 2 – Coder 3)*	X
Discussion to finalize conceptual model	X	X	X

*Deductive Coding and Coding Comparison steps repeated following discussion until acceptable agreement was reached