Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 21;22(1):372.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07755-3.

Patients' and professionals' perspectives on the consideration of patients' convenient therapy periods as part of personalised rehabilitation: a focus group study with patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation

Mona Dür  1   2   3 , Claudia Wenzel  4   5 , Patrick Simon  4   5 , Gerhard Tucek  4   5
Affiliations

Patients' and professionals' perspectives on the consideration of patients' convenient therapy periods as part of personalised rehabilitation: a focus group study with patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation

Mona Dür et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Research on the optimal period for administering health services, especially rehabilitation interventions, is scarce. The aims of this study were to explore the construct of patients' convenient therapy periods and to identify indicators based on the perspectives of patients and different health professionals from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics.

Methods: This study was part of a larger project on patients' convenient therapy periods following a mixed methods approach. In the current study a grounded theory approach was employed based on the use of focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were conducted in three different inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics. Patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics who were able to speak and to participate in conversations were included.

Results: A total of 41 persons, including 23 patients and 18 therapists, such as music and occupational therapists, participated in a total of six focus group interviews. The analysis of the focus group interviews resulted in the identification of a total of 1261 codes, which could be summarised in fifteen categories. However, these categories could be divided into five indicators and ten impact factors of convenient therapy periods. Identified indicators were verbal and non-verbal communication, mental functions, physiological needs, recreational needs, and therapy initiation.

Conclusions: The results provide initial evidence that convenient therapy periods are clinically relevant for patients and therapists. Different states of patients' ability to effectively participate in a rehabilitation intervention exist. A systematic consideration of patients' convenient therapy periods could contribute to a personalised and more efficient delivery of intervention in neurological rehabilitation. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to research convenient therapy periods.

Keywords: Delivery of health care; Health services research; Quality of health care; Rehabilitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Some of the authors’ working hours (MD, CW & PS) were allocated to the research project of which the current study was part of. The research project was partially funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development and the Christian Doppler Research Association. Based on the funding conditions, a proportion of authors’ salaries, pursuant to project related work hours, were covered by the project costs. The funding parties had no influence on the study or the manuscript. The authors declare no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of focus groups and results.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gutenbrunner C, Meyer T, Melvin J, Stucki G. Towards a conceptual description of physical and rehabilitation medicine. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(9):760–764. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation . Rehabilitation in health systems. , vol. 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. - PubMed
    1. Janssen RMJ, Satink T, Ijspeert J, van Alfen N, Groothuis JT, Packer TL, Cup EHC. Reflections of patients and therapists on a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for persons with brachial plexus injuries. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(12):1427–1434. - PubMed
    1. Kalron A, Nitzani D, Magalashvili D, Dolev M, Menascu S, Stern Y, Rosenblum U, Pasitselsky D, Frid L, Zeilig G, et al. A personalized, intense physical rehabilitation program improves walking in people with multiple sclerosis presenting with different levels of disability: a retrospective cohort. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:21–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schleidgen S, Klingler C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:55. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources