Identifying key elements to assess patient’s acceptability of neurorehabilitation in stroke survivors – a Delphi method

References

• Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions-challenges for doctors. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):542–545.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carter SL. Review of recent treatment acceptability research. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2007;42(3):301–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazdin AE. Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1980;13(2):259–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley ML, Heffer RW, Gresham FM, et al. Development of a modified treatment evaluation inventory. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 1989;11(3):235–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heffer RW, Kelley ML. Mothers' acceptance of behavioral interventions for children: the influence of parent race and income. Behavior Therapy. 1987;18(2):153–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt JC, Martens B, Elliott SN. Factors affecting teachers' judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy. 1984;15(2):204–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel KA, Hente E, Herzer M, et al. Telehealth behavioral treatment for medication nonadherence: a pilot and feasibility study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(4):469–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milosevic I, Levy HC, Alcolado GM, et al. The treatment acceptability/adherence scale: moving beyond the assessment of treatment effectiveness. Cogn Behav Ther. 2015;44(6):456–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morone G, Pisotta I, Pichiorri F, et al. Proof of principle of a brain–computer interface approach to support poststroke arm rehabilitation in hospitalized patients: design, acceptability, and usability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S71–S8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert SJ, Kesselring J. Neurorehabilitation of stroke. J Neurol. 2012;259(5):817–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimyan MA, Dobkin BH, Cohen LG. Emerging subspecialties: neurorehabilitation: training neurologists to retrain the brain. Neurology. 2008;70(16):e52–e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, et al. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke-consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke. 2014;9(3):313–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganguly K, Byl NN, Abrams GM. Neurorehabilitation: motor recovery after stroke as an example. Ann Neurol. 2013;74(3):373–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murie-Fernández M, Irimia P, Martínez-Vila E, et al. Neuro-rehabilitation after stroke. Neurologia. 2010;25(3):189–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatem SM, Saussez G, della Faille M, et al. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmcrantz S, Tistad M, Eldh AC, et al. Assessing feasibility and acceptability of study procedures: getting ready for implementation of national stroke guidelines in out-patient health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzoleni S, Turchetti G, Palla I, et al. Acceptability of robotic technology in neuro-rehabilitation: preliminary results on chronic stroke patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014;116(2):116–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameer K, Ali K. iPad use in stroke neuro-rehabilitation. Geriatrics. 2017;2(1):2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jani BD, Simpson R, Lawrence M, et al. Acceptability of mindfulness from the perspective of stroke survivors and caregivers: a qualitative study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4(57):57–59.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin S, Mann J, Mansfield A, et al. Investigating the feasibility and acceptability of real-time visual feedback in reducing compensatory motions during self-administered stroke rehabilitation exercises: a pilot study with chronic stroke survivors. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2019;6:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson A, Makower S, Culmer P, et al., editors. Acceptability of robot assisted active arm exercise as part of rehabilitation after stroke. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2009, p. 103-108. DOI:10.1109/ICORR.2009.5209549.
   Google Scholar
• Horne M, Thomas N, McCabe C, et al. Patient-directed therapy during in-patient stroke rehabilitation: stroke survivors' views of feasibility and acceptability. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(25):2344–2349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warland A, Paraskevopoulos I, Tsekleves E, et al. The feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of a low-cost, virtual-reality based, upper-limb stroke rehabilitation device: a mixed methods study. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(18):2119–2134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameirao MS, Badia SBi, Duarte E, et al. The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2720–2728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(4):376–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, et al. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLOS One. 2011;6(6):e20476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management. 2004;42(1):15–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepworth LR, Rowe FJ. Using Delphi methodology in the development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for stroke survivors with visual impairment. Brain Behav. 2018;8(2):e00898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basset T, Faulkner A, Repper J, et al. Lived experience leading the way: peer support in mental health. London: Together UK. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2014;9:26152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NVivo. (Version 11). Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel C, Zwolinsky S, Griffiths C, et al. A Delphi study to build consensus on the definition and use of big data in obesity research. Int J Obes. 2019;43(12):2573–2586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holey EA, Feeley JL, Dixon J, et al. An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Medical Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hall DA, Smith H, Heffernan E, Group COMiTIDRS, et al. Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: evaluating the COMiT'ID study. PLOS One. 2018;13(7):e0201378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton AM, Eady EA, Thiboutot DM, et al. Identifying what to measure in acne clinical trials: first steps towards development of a core outcome set. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(8):1784–1786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bower KJ, Clark RA, McGinley JL, et al. Clinical feasibility of the Nintendo Wii™ for balance training post-stroke: a phase II randomized controlled trial in an inpatient setting. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(9):912–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bower KJ, Louie J, Landesrocha Y, et al. Clinical feasibility of interactive motion-controlled games for stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skulmoski GJ, Hartman FT, Krahn J. The Delphi method for graduate research. JITE: Research. 2007;6(1):1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Cameirão MS, Badia SBI, Oller ED, et al. Neurorehabilitation using the virtual reality based rehabilitation gaming system: methodology, design, psychometrics, usability and validation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7:48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen M-H, Huang L-L, Lee C-F, et al. A controlled pilot trial of two commercial video games for rehabilitation of arm function after stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2015;29(7):674–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohlman J, Chazin D, Georgescu B. Feasibility and acceptance of a nonpharmacological cognitive remediation intervention for patients with parkinson disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2011;24(2):91–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson A, Stephens J. An exploration of physiotherapists' experiences of robotic therapy in upper limb rehabilitation within a stroke rehabilitation centre. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers MP, deBear PC, Erlandson R, et al. Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1991;28(2):33–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. Non-response in student surveys: the role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res High Educ. 2005;46(2):127–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleh A, Bista K. Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: perceptions of graduate students. JMDE. 2017;13(29):63–74.
   Google Scholar
• Van Mol C. Improving web survey efficiency: the impact of an extra reminder and reminder content on web survey response. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(4):317–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar