↓ Skip to main content

Staff’s views on delivering patient-led therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a focus group study with lessons for trial fidelity

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

12 tweeters
1 Facebook page


9 Dimensions

Readers on

48 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Staff’s views on delivering patient-led therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a focus group study with lessons for trial fidelity
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0646-9
Pubmed ID

Maria Horne, Nessa Thomas, Andy Vail, Rudd Selles, Candy McCabe, Sarah Tyson


Fidelity to the treatment protocol is key to successful trials but often problematic. This article reports the staff's views on delivering a complex rehabilitation intervention: patient-led therapy during inpatient stroke care. An exploratory qualitative study using focus groups with staff involved in a multicenter (n = 12) feasibility trial of patient-led therapy (the MAESTRO trial) was undertaken as part of the evaluation process. Purposive sampling ensured that participants represented all recruiting sites, relevant professions and levels of seniority. Data analysis used a Framework Approach. Five focus groups were held involving 30 participants. Five main themes emerged: the effect of the interventions, practical problems, patient-related factors, professional dilemmas, and skills. Staff felt the main effect of the therapies was on patients' autonomy and occupation; the main practical problems were the patients' difficulties in achieving the correct position and a lack of space. Staff clearly identified characteristics that made patient-led therapy unsuitable for some patients. Most staff experienced dilemmas over how to prioritize the trial interventions compared to their usual therapy and other clinical demands. Staff also lacked confidence about how to deliver the interventions, particularly when adapting the interventions to individual needs. For each barrier to implementation, possible solutions were identified. Of these, involving other people and establishing a routine were the most common. Delivering rehabilitation interventions within a trial is complex. Staff require time and support to develop the skills, strategies and confidence to identify suitable patients, deliver new treatments, adapt the new treatments to individuals' needs and balance the demands of delivering the trial intervention according to the treatment protocol with other clinical and professional priorities. ISRCTN29533052 . October 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 23%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Computer Science 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
of 16,650,161 outputs
Outputs from Trials
of 4,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 229,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,650,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them