Qualitative study reveals high intervention acceptability despite lack of functional benefit in spinal cord injury, highlighting valuable features for standard rehabilitation.
Study design A qualitative study. Objectives To explore participants’, therapists’ and stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions of the trial intervention provided as part of the Early and Intensive Motor Training Trial for people with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI-MT Trial). The intervention involved 12 h per week of task specific training supplemented with strength training. Settings Fifteen spinal injury units across Europe and Australia. Methods Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted including 20 with trial participants, 16 with trial therapists and 4 with stakeholders. Interview questions were framed around the Implementation Research Logic Model and the interview guide was developed by the research team. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses were done iteratively. Trustworthiness was ensured through four criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability). Results Three themes were identified from these interviews, (i) the trial intervention was well received by participants and therapists, (ii) there were strengths and challenges to providing the trial intervention according to its key principles, and (iii) participants, therapists and stakeholders differed in what they felt the trial needed to demonstrate to justify the future rollout of the trial intervention. Conclusions There were many features of the intervention provided as part of the SCI-MT Trial that both participants and therapists valued even though the trial results indicated no therapeutic benefit. Consideration should be given to how some of these features could be better incorporated into usual care to improve patient satisfaction and engagement. Clinical Trial Registration number ACTRN12621000091808. Universal Trial number U1111-1264-1689
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: