4.4 Article

Client and therapist views on exercise programmes for early-mid stage Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 917-928

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903362712

关键词

Home exercise; physiotherapy; physical therapy

资金

  1. Physiotherapy Research Society
  2. Wales' Chief Medical Officer Research budget
  3. MRC [G0700943] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0700943, G0801418B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Physiotherapists frequently prescribe home exercise programmes for individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) and Huntington's disease (HD); however, little is known about clients' perceptions of such programmes and any barriers that may affect participation and compliance. Method. A qualitative design was used to capture the attitudes and experiences of people with early-mid stage HD and PD, and with physiotherapists who have experience in neurodegenerative diseases. Two focus groups were conducted for physiotherapists (n = 8); individual interviews were conducted for clients with HD and PD (n = 10). Conversations were digitally recorded and transcribed, and transcriptions were analysed using grounded theory and validated through researcher triangulation. Concepts were categorised according to emerging themes and findings were verified by participants. Results. Both groups cited several barriers to engagement in exercise programmes, which included disease-specific impairments, individual safety and the location at which exercising takes place. Therapists felt that a client's cognition could affect their ability to participate in an exercise programme. Therapists and clients offered a number of strategies to overcome barriers to exercise. Conclusions. Therapists should work in collaboration with clients to evaluate their individual considerations, identify barriers to exercise and design a client-specific programme that is acceptable and feasible for the client.

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

4.4
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