Dataset Information

Clinicians and individuals with acquired brain injury perspectives about factors that influence mobility: creating a core set of mobility domains among individuals with acquired brain injury.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify factors which may influence mobility and could be considered during the evaluation of mobility in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) following qualitative focus groups with both clinicians and individuals with ABI, to assess their needs and preferences in order to individualize their care management plans.

Methods

Five focus groups were held, three with clinicians from 3 rehabilitation sites of CRIR (CRDM: n = 4; IURDPM: n = 3; JRH: n = 10) and two with individuals with ABI from one rehabilitation site (CRDM) (individuals with stroke: n = 5; individuals with TBI: n = 5). Focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic content approaches.

Results

Four themes were identified: considering mobility holistically and individual needs, preferences, and unique experiences; assessment and intervention guidelines; support network; and uncertainty about symptoms and recovery. Using the ten-rule International Classification, Functioning, Disability, and Health framework linking process, codes were categorized into Body Functions Activity and Participation, and Environmental Factors exploring the prominent domains that mostly identify factors influencing mobility.

Conclusions

Comprehensive measurement of mobility remains an ongoing challenge owing to multiple contributing factors, ranging from personal and psychosocial factors to the influence of a myriad of environmental and community considerations. Preparing individuals with ABI for community mobility can be substantially improved if healthcare professionals employ communicative tools to facilitate shared decision making with patients and to deliver patient-centred rehabilitation care.

SUBMITTER: Alhasani R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8676689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveWhile several mobility measures exist, there is large variability across measures in how mobility is conceptualized, the source of information and the measurement properties making it challenging to select relevant mobility measures for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Therefore, the objective was to conduct a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on the measurement properties, the interpretability and the feasibility of mobility measures from various sources of information (patients, clinicians, technology) using an umbrella review of published systematic reviews among individuals with ABI.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, CINHAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2000 to March 2020. Two independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Measurement properties and quality of evidence were applied according to COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) guidelines. Mobility measures were categorized using international standards with the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF).ResultsThirty-five systematic reviews were included covering 147 mobility measures, of which 85% were mapped to the ICF Activity and Participation component. Results showed an acceptable overall "sufficient" rating for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for 132 (90%), 127 (86%) and 76 (52%) of the measures, respectively; however, among these measures, ≤ 25% of the methods for evaluating these properties were rated as 'high' quality of evidence. Also, there was limited information that supports measure feasibility and scoring interpretability.ConclusionsFuture systematic reviews should report measures' content validity to support the use of the measure in clinical care and research. More evaluations of the minimal important difference and floor and ceiling effects are needed to help guide clinical interpretation.Registration informationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); ID: CRD42018100068.

Project description:BackgroundThe sheer number of measures evaluating mobility and inconsistencies in terminology make it challenging to extract potential core domains and items. Automating a portion of the data synthesis would allow us to cover a much larger volume of studies and databases in a smaller fraction of the time compared to the usual process. Thus, the objective of this study was to identify a comprehensive outcome set and develop preliminary banks of items of mobility among individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) using Natural Language Processing (NLP).MethodsAn umbrella review of 47 reviews evaluating the content of mobility measures among individuals with ABI was conducted. A search was performed on 5 databases between 2000 and 2020. Two independent reviewers retrieved copies of the measures and extracted mobility domains and items. A pre-trained BERT model (state-of-the-art model for NLP) provided vector representations for each sentence. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Framework (ICF) ontology as a guide for clustering, a k-means algorithm was used to retrieve clusters of similar sentences from their embeddings. The resulting embedding clusters were evaluated using the Silhouette score and fine-tuned according to expert input.ResultsThe study identified 246 mobility measures, including 474 domains and 2109 items. Encoding the clusters using the ICF ontology and expert knowledge helped in regrouping the items in a way that is more closely related to mobility terminology. Our best results identified banks of items that were used to create a 24 comprehensive outcome sets of mobility, including Upper Extremity Mobility, Emotional Function, Balance, Motor Control, Self-care, Social Life and Relationships, Cognition, Walking, Postural Transition, Recreation, and Leisure Activities, Activities of Daily Living, Physical Functioning, Communication, Work/Study, Climbing, Sensory Functions, General Health, Fatigue, Functional Independence, Pain, Alcohol and Drugs Use, Transportation, Sleeping, and Finances.ConclusionThe banks of items of mobility domains represent a first step toward establishing a comprehensive outcome set and a common language of mobility to develop the ontology. It enables researchers and healthcare professionals to begin exposing the content of mobility measures as a way to assess mobility comprehensively.

Project description:BackgroundLow mobility during an acute care medical hospitalization is frequent and associated with adverse outcomes, particularly among older patients. Better understanding barriers and facilitators to improve mobility during hospitalization could help develop effective interventions. The goal of this study was to assess barriers and facilitators to older medical patients' hospital mobility, from the point of view of patients and clinicians, to develop a framework applicable in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study in one university and two non-university hospitals of two different language and cultural regions of Switzerland, including 13 focus groups (FGs; five with patients, eight with clinicians). We included 24 adults aged 60 years or older hospitalized on an acute general internal medicine ward of one of the three participating hospitals during the previous years, and 34 clinicians (15 physicians, nine nurses/nursing assistants, 10 physiotherapists) working on those wards. The FG guides included open-ended questions exploring mobility experiences, expectations, barriers and facilitators to mobility, consequences of low mobility and knowledge on mobility. We applied an inductive thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four themes of barriers and facilitators to mobility: 1) patient-related factors; 2) clinician-related factors; 3) social interactions; and 4) non-human factors. Clinician-related factors were only mentioned in clinician FGs. Otherwise, subthemes identified from patient and clinician FGs were similar and codes broadly overlapped. Subthemes included motivation, knowledge, expectations, mental and physical state (theme 1); process, knowledge - skills, mental state - motivation (theme 2); interpersonal relationships, support (theme 3); hospital setting - organization (theme 4).ConclusionsFrom patients' and clinicians' perspectives, a broad spectrum of human and structural factors influences mobility of older patients hospitalized on an acute general internal medicine ward. New factors included privacy issues and role perception. Many of those factors are potentially actionable without additional staff resources. This study is a first step in participatory research to improve mobility of older medical inpatients.