The provision of feedback through computer-based technology to promote self-managed post-stroke rehabilitation in the home

References

• Strong K, Mathers C, Bonita R. Preventing stroke: saving lives around the world. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:182–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. National Stroke Strategy, 2007. Crown Copyright. London. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_081059.pdf [last accessed 03 Oct 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Saka Ö, Serra V, Samyshkin Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness of stroke care followed by early supported discharge. Stroke 2009;40:24–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalra L, Ratan R. Recent advances in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2006;38:235–7
   Google Scholar
• Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2006;19:84–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker RN, Brauer SG. Upper limb recovery after stroke: the stroke survivors’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1213–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards LG, Stewart KC, Woodbury ML, et al. Movement-dependent stroke recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of TMS and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia 2008;46:3–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vliet P, Wulf G. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence? Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:831–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:741–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magill RA. Augmented feedback. In: Magill RA, ed. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. 8th ed. London: McGraw Hill; 2007:331–59
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA. Motor learning and performance: a situation-based learning approach. 4th ed. Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Somatosensory recovery: a longitudinal study of the first 6 months after unilateral stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:293–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramanian SK, Massie CL, Malcolm MP, Levin MF. Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? A systematic review of the evidence. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2010;24:113–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook AWM, Woollacott M. Motor control. Translating research into clinical practice. 3rd ed. London: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National clinical guidelines for stroke: improving motor control. 4th ed. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2008;22:111–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil 2007;14:52–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mountain GA, Ware PM, Hammerton J, et al. The SMART project: a user led approach to developing applications for domiciliary stroke rehabilitation. In: Clarkson P, Langdon J, Robinson P, eds. Designing accessible technology. London: Springer-Verlag; 2006:135–44
   Google Scholar
• Mountain G, Wilson S, Eccleston C, et al. Developing and testing a telerehabilitation system for people following stroke: issues of usability. J Eng Design 2010;21:223–36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker J, Mountain GA, Hammerton J. An investigation into stroke patients’ utilisation of feedback from computer-based technology. In: Langdon P, Clarkson J, Robinson P, eds. Designing inclusive interactions. London: Springer-Verlag; 2010:167–76
   Google Scholar
• Jones F. Strategies to enhance chronic disease self-management: how can we apply this to stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:841–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput 2011;49:1103–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siekierka EM, Eng K, Bassetti C, et al. New technologies and concepts for rehabilitation in the acute phase of stroke: a collaborative matrix. Neurodegener Dis 2007;4:57–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein J, Hughes R, Fasoli SE, et al. Technological aids for motor recovery. In: Stein J, Harvey RL, Macko RF, et al, eds. Stroke recovery and rehabilitation. New York: Demos Medical; 2009:307–21
   Google Scholar
• Ballinger C, Ashburn A, Low J, Roderick P. Unpacking the black box of therapy – a pilot study to describe occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions for people with stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:301–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeJong G, Horn SD, Gassaway JA, et al. Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: using an inductive approach to examine the “black box” of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:678–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartvelt A, Hegarty JR. Augmented feedback and physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapy 1996;82:480–90
   Google Scholar
• Wohlin-Wottrich AW, Stenstrom CH, Engardt M, et al. Characteristics of physiotherapy sessions from the patient’s and therapist’s perspective. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:1198–205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parker J, Mountain GA, Hammerton J. A review of the evidence underpinning the use of visual and auditory feedback for computer technology in post-stroke upper-limb rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:465–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilmore PE, Spaulding SJ. Motor learning and the use of videotape feedback after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2007;14:28–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piron L, Tombolini P, Turolla A, et al. Reinforced feedback in virtual environment facilitates the arm recovery in patients after a recent stroke. Virtual Rehabil 2007;27--29 Sept:121–3
   Google Scholar
• Coote S, Murphy B, Harwin W, Stokes E. The effect of the GENTLE/s robot mediated therapy system on arm function post-stroke. Clin Rehabil 2008;22:395–405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• www.thesmartconsortium.org (2009) The Smart Consortium. Available from: http://www.thesmartconsortium.org/Smart_2/index.php [last accessed 19 Jan 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Parker J. Stroke patients’ utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home [PhD thesis]. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Parker J, Mawson S, Mountain G, et al. Stroke patients’ utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home: a realistic evaluation. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak 2013. Manuscript under review
   Google Scholar
• Mawson S, Nasr N, Parker J, et al. Developing a personalised self-management rehabilitation system for post-stroke rehabilitation; utilising a user-centred design methodology. 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Torsi S, Nasr N, Wright PC, et al. User-centered design for supporting the self-management of chronic illnesses: an interdisciplinary approach. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Corfu, Greece; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Nasr N, Torsi S, Wright P, et al. Supporting the self-management of stroke by applying a user-centred design approach. Clin Rehabil 2010;24:276–87
   Google Scholar
• Nasr N, Mawson S, Parker J, Mountain G. A realistic evaluation framework to explore the implementation of the SMART personalised self-management rehabilitation system for chronic disease. 2013; Manuscript submitted for publication
   Google Scholar
• Monk A, Wright P, Haber J, Davenport L. Improving your human-computer interface: a practitioner’s guide. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall; 1993
   Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L, Kalmus M, Hirani D, Clegg F. The Depression Intensity Scale Circles (DISCs): initial evaluation of a simple assessment tool for depression in the context of brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1273–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasr N, Mawson S, Parker J, et al. Using experience to inform the development of a stroke self-management technology. 2013. Manuscript in preparation
   Google Scholar
• Jones F, Riazi A. Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:797–810
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorig K, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 2003;26:1–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson MJ, Feng X, Johnson LM, Winters JM. Potential of a suite of robot/computer-assisted motivating systems for personalized, home-based, stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2007;4:6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones F, Mandy A, Partridge C. Changing self-efficacy in individuals following a first time stroke: preliminary study of a novel self-management intervention. Clin Rehabil 2009;23:522–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall E, Catalano T, Kuipers P, et al. Recovery following stroke: the role of self-management education. Soc Sci Med 2007;64:735–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huijbrets MPJ, McEwen S, Taylor D. Exploring the feasibility of a telehealth stroke self-management programme: a pilot study. Physiother Can 2009;61:210–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MRC. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. 2004. Available from: http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf [last accessed 03 Oct 2013]
   Google Scholar