PTQualitativeTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2023

Communicating Standing and Walking Data after Spinal Cord Injury: A Patient-Engaged, Qualitative Study.

Katherine Chan, Lovisa Cheung, Chris Taylor and 4 others

PMID 38174128

WHAT IT FOUND

People with spinal cord injury want feedback on their walking, but preferences vary widely.

Most wanted a mix of verbal and written updates to track progress. Some found scores less useful than noting real functional gains. A personalized feedback plan agreed upon at admission may better meet these individual needs.

Key findings

01Most participants preferred a hybrid format for feedback, combining oral discussion with written or visual information.

02Feedback was valued for setting goals, monitoring therapy progress, and communicating abilities to other healthcare professionals.

03Existing tools like the Standing and Walking Assessment Tool (SWAT) were seen as clear, but some participants prioritized tangible functional changes over numerical scores.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study relied on phone interviews, which prevented observation of nonverbal cues. Only four participants were non-ambulatory at the time of the interview, so findings primarily reflect the perspectives of those who could walk. Clinician perspectives were not included, so the study only reports the patient side of the feedback exchange.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that standardized scores on tools like the SWAT are universally valued by patients. While these tools provide objective data, some participants found them less useful than descriptions of tangible functional changes, so feedback should be tailored to what the individual patient finds meaningful.

Read it on PubMed →