4.5 Article

Activity coaching to improve walking is liked by rehabilitation patients but physiotherapists have concerns: a qualitative study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 199-206

出版社

AUSTRALIAN PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70184-X

关键词

Qualitative research; Physiotherapy; Behaviour; Patient-centred care; Physical activity

资金

  1. AUT Internal Contestable Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Question: Does activity coaching add value to physiotherapy from the perspective of physiotherapists and patients in neurological rehabilitation? Is the use of activity coaching to promote walking and physical activity considered feasible by these physiotherapists and patients? Design: Qualitative study using interviews. Participants: Five pairs of physiotherapists and their patients with neurological conditions. Intervention: A research physiotherapist trained in health coaching delivered an activity coaching intervention. This was provided in addition to standard physiotherapy. The treating physiotherapists observed the activity coaching session undertaken by their patients. Results: Observing the coaching interview was valuable for the treating physiotherapists in that it provided a way to refocus, step back, gain insight, and facilitate more active involvement for their patients in the rehabilitation process. Similarly patients valued the opportunity to focus on what was important and put into action their rehabilitation goals. Contrasting perceptions were evident, which limits the practical usefulness of this intervention due to the concerns voiced by some of the physiotherapists. Conclusion: The activity coaching was perceived as providing a valuable addition to standard practice and was acceptable to patients but the mixed responses of physiotherapists limit the feasibility of this approach. Use of strategies and specific training for physiotherapists may be needed before approaches like activity coaching can be adopted successfully.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据