Understanding Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators to Clinical Implementation of the on Track Developmental Monitoring System for Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Qualitative Study.
Heather A Feldner, Alyssa LaForme Fiss, Lynn M Jeffries and 1 others
PMID 35361046WHAT IT FOUND
Clinicians valued comparing children with cerebral palsy with peers at the same gross motor level, not typical development.
They wanted more hands-on training, digital scoring, and help with time, reimbursement, and policy barriers.
Key findings
01Using On Track DMS to compare children with CP to age and GMFCS level-matched peers was meaningful, and clinicians felt this was more constructive than using norm-referenced pediatric outcome measures.
02Sixteen clinicians noted clinic, institutional, or policy barriers to implementation, including reimbursement rules.
03Eleven clinicians asked for additional hands-on practice, while all clinicians were excited by the online calculator.
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.
What it does not show
The focus group sample was small and likely included clinicians already interested in On Track DMS, so their views may be more favorable than average. Administrators and managers were not explicitly recruited, although they can affect adoption. The sample was all female and mostly White, so it may miss barriers or facilitators seen by other groups. No follow-up checked whether clinicians actually used the system after training. The researcher who led the focus groups was a pediatric physical therapist, which may have influenced participants to agree rather than dissent.
Declared interests
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest. The supplied text does not state who funded the work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that On Track DMS improves outcomes or is feasible everywhere. It reports clinicians' views after one training, with no follow-up on actual use and no patient outcome data.