PTOtherClinical rehabilitation2026

Inspiratory muscle training for people with spinal cord injury: An implementation study.

Keira E Tranter, Lisa A Harvey, Lydia W Chen and 7 others

PMID 41816822

WHAT IT FOUND

A 6-week package of audit feedback, education and a clinical champion raised inspiratory muscle training provision by physiotherapists for spinal cord injury from 20% to 91%.

Two months after support stopped, provision fell to 72%. Continuous audit feedback was needed to hold the gain.

Key findings

01Provision of inspiratory muscle training to eligible patients rose from 20% at baseline to 91% immediately after the 6-week implementation phase.

02Two months after the implementation phase ended, provision had fallen to 72% and training fidelity to 76%, showing the gain decayed once support stopped.

03Physiotherapists' knowledge of the guideline recommendation for inspiratory muscle training rose from 55% at baseline to 91% after implementation and was held at follow-up.

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

Only three spinal units, 21 physiotherapists and 68 patients were involved, and the authors themselves say the study would have been stronger with more sites, therapists and patients. Implementation strategies were delivered for just six weeks, which the authors note may not have been long enough to hold the behaviour change. Adherence to the implementation strategies was not measured, so the reasons for the drop in provision at follow-up are only hypothesised. No second round of interviews after follow-up was done, so the barriers to sustaining the change were not explored. The effect of any single strategy cannot be separated, because audit feedback, education and the clinical champion were delivered together as one package.

Declared interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The clinical practice guideline used in the study was funded by icare NSW, National Injury Insurance Scheme Queensland, Transport Accident Commission Victoria and Lifetime Support Authority South Australia, and open access funding was provided by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 91% post-implementation figure as a lasting change. Two months after support ended, provision had already fallen to 72%, so the gain was not sustained without ongoing audit feedback.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →