Search

Background: Over 120,000 people in the UK survive critical illness each year, with over 60% of these experiencing mobility issues and reduced health-related quality of life after discharge home. This qualitative systematic review aimed to explore critical care survivors’ perceptions, opinions, and experiences of physical recovery and physical rehabilitation following hospital discharge. Methods: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was conducted between January 2020 and June 2022. The search was conducted using the following databases: Embase, CINAHL, Medline Ovid, Cochrane, and the Joanna Briggs Institute, and sources of grey literature were searched for eligible studies. Qualitative studies focused on physical rehabilitation or recovery, involving adult survivors of critical illness who had been discharged from hospital. Results: A total of 7 of 548 identified studies published in 2007–2019 were eligible for inclusion. The findings indicate that qualitative evidence around the experiences of physical recovery and rehabilitation interventions following discharge home after critical illness is limited. Three synthesised findings were identified: ‘Positivity, motivation and hope’; ‘Recovery is hard and patients need support’; and ‘Patients experience challenges in momentum of physical recovery’. Conclusions: Survivors struggle to access healthcare professionals and services following discharge home, which influences the momentum of physical recovery. Supervised exercise programmes had a positive impact on the perception of recovery and motivation. However, ‘simple’ structured exercise provision will not address the range of challenges experienced by ICU survivors. Whilst some factors influencing physical recovery are similar to other groups, there are unique issues experienced by those returning home after critical illness. Further research is needed to identify the support or interventions survivors feel would meet their needs and assist their physical recovery. This study was prospectively registered with Prospero on 3/2/2020 with registration number CRD42020165290.

Abstract Background High‐intensity interval training (HIIT) is feasible and beneficial for some people with Parkinson's (PwP), although adherence to extended programs may be problematic. PwP face barriers to exercise such as lack of time, expense, and difficulty with travel logistics due to motor symptoms. HIIT based in the home setting if practical, could therefore be apposite for PwP by overcoming these barriers. However, until now, no home‐based HIIT program for PwP has been developed. Cocreated by PwP, clinicians, and family members, the HIIT‐Home4Parkinson's (HH4P) program is an innovative, 12‐week home‐based HIIT program for PwP. This protocol describes a feasibility study designed to assess the feasibility and safety of the HH4P program, explore outcomes that may be sensitive to change, and inform the implementation of a potential full trial. Methods/design Using a randomized controlled parallel group design, 24 independently mobile people with Parkinson's of mild to moderate disease severity will be randomized 1:1 to either the HH4P program plus usual care, or usual care alone. Both groups will be assessed at baseline, and upon the completion of the program. Outcomes will include feasibility and safety factors such as recruitment, completion, adverse events, and intervention fidelity with qualitative evaluation along with mechanistic, physiological, and clinical outcomes. Discussion Results of this study will inform the rationale and methodological considerations for a full trial with long‐term follow‐up. Ultimately, further establishing the practicality and utility of home‐based HIIT could provide an important exercise option for PwP, potentially leading to extended participation and increased health and well‐being for this population.

BackgroundTelerehabilitation is a feasible and potentially effective alternative to face-to-face rehabilitation. However, specific guidance, training, and support for practitioners who undertake remote assessments in people with physical disabilities and movement impairment are limited. ObjectiveThe aims of this survey of United Kingdom–based health and social care practitioners were to explore experiences, assess training needs, and collate ideas on best practices in telerehabilitation for physical disabilities and movement impairment. The aim will be to use the findings to inform a practical tool kit and training package for telerehabilitation use. MethodsUK rehabilitation practitioners were invited to complete an online questionnaire from November to December 2020. Opportunity and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants from professional and educational networks, special interest groups, and via social media. Closed questionnaire items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative inductive analysis using NVivo was used for open responses. ResultsThere were 247 respondents, of which 177 (72%) were physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Most (n=207, 84%) had used video-based consultations (typically supported by telephone and email), and the use of this method had increased in frequency since the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioners perceived telerehabilitation positively overall and recognized benefits for patients including a reduced infection risk, convenience and flexibility, and reduced travel and fatigue. Common obstacles were technology related (eg, internet connection), practical (eg, difficulty positioning the camera), patient related (eg, health status), practitioner related (eg, lack of technical skills), and organizational (eg, lack of access to technology). Support from family members or carers was a major facilitator for successful remote consultations. Of the 207 respondents who had used video-based consultations, 103 (50%) had assessed physical impairments using this method, 107 (52%) had assessed physical function, and 121 (59%) had used patient-reported outcome measures. Although practitioners generally felt confident in delivering video-based consultations, they felt less proficient in undertaking remote physical assessments, expressing concerns about validity, reliability, and safety. Only 46 of the 247 (19%) respondents had received any training in telerehabilitation or video consultations, and some felt they were “feeling their way in the dark.” Practitioners desired training and guidance on physical assessment tools suitable for remote use, when to use video-based consultations or alternative methods, governance issues, digital platforms, and signposting to digital skills training for themselves and their patients. ConclusionsIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners rapidly adopted telerehabilitation for people with physical disabilities and movement impairment. However, there are technical, practical, and organizational obstacles to overcome, and a clear need for improved guidance and training in remote physical assessments. The findings of this survey will inform the development of a tool kit of resources and a training package for the current and future workforce in telerehabilitation.

BackgroundUnderstanding and assessing patients’ body movements is essential for physical rehabilitation but is challenging in video consultations, as clinicians are frequently unable to see the whole patient or observe the patient as they perform specific movements. ObjectiveThe objective of this exploratory study was to assess the use of readily available technologies that would enable remote assessment of patient movement as part of a video consultation. MethodsWe reviewed the literature and available technologies and chose four technologies (Kubi and Pivo desktop robots, Facebook Portal TV, wide-angle webcam), in addition to help from a friend or a simple mobile phone holder, to assist video consultations. We used 5 standard assessments (sit-to-stand, timed “Up & Go,” Berg Balance Test, ankle range of motion, shoulder range of motion) as the “challenge” for the technology. We developed an evaluation framework of 6 items: efficacy, cost, delivery, patient setup, clinician training and guidance, and safety. The coauthors, including 10 physiotherapists, then took the roles of clinician and patient to explore 7 combinations of 5 technologies. Subsequently, we applied our findings to hypothetical patients based on the researchers’ family members and clinical experience. ResultsKubi, which allowed the clinician to remotely control the patient’s device, was useful for repositioning the tablet camera to gain a better view of the patient’s body parts but not for tracking movement. Facebook Portal TV was useful, but only for upper body movement, as it functions based on face tracking. Both Pivo, with automated full body tracking using a mobile phone, and the wide-angle webcam for a laptop or desktop computer show promise. Simple solutions such as having a friend operate a mobile phone and use of a mobile phone holder also have potential. The setup of these technologies will require better instructions than are currently available from suppliers, and successful use will depend on the technology readiness of patients and, to some degree, of clinicians. ConclusionsTechnologies that may enable clinicians to assess movement remotely as part of video consultations depend on the interplay of technology readiness, the patient’s clinical conditions, and social support. The most promising off-the-shelf approaches seem to be use of wide-angle webcams, Pivo, help from a friend, or a simple mobile phone holder. Collaborative work between patients and clinicians is needed to develop and trial technological solutions to support video consultations assessing movement.

Objective To identify the available guidance and training to implement telerehabilitation movement assessments for people (adults and children) with a physical disability, including those recovering from COVID-19.Design Rapid scoping review.Included sources and articles PubMed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, UK Health Forum, WHO, National Archives and NHS England were searched using the participant–concept–context framework from 2015 to August 2020. Primary studies that recruited individuals with physical disabilities and guidance documents aimed at providers to implement movement-related telerehabilitation were included.Results 23 articles (11 primary research studies, 3 systematic reviews and 9 guidance documents) were included out of 7857 that were identified from the literature search. Two main issues were found: (1) telerehabilitation guidance (from both research studies and guidance documents) was not specific to movement-related assessment and (2) most primary research studies provided neither guidance nor training of movement-specific assessment to practitioners. Of the COVID-19 related guidance, two articles reported COVID-19 management that only referred to identifying COVID-19 status without references to specific movement-related guidance.Conclusions Telerehabilitation guidance and training have existed pre-COVID-19, yet the lack of specific movement-related information and provider support is surprising. This gap must be addressed to optimise effective implementation of remote assessments for those with physical disabilities.Review registration Open Science Framework: osf.io/vm6sp.

The genetic engineering method CRISPR has been touted as an efficient, inexpensive, easily used, and targeted genetic modification technology that is widely suggested as having the potential to solve many of the problems facing agriculture now and in the future. Like all new technologies, however, it is not without challenges. One of the most difficult challenges to anticipate and detect is gene targets that are inaccessible due to the chromatin state at their specific location. There is currently no way to predict this during the process of designing a sgRNA target, and the only way to detect this issue before spending time and resources on full transformations is to test the cleavage ability of the sgRNA in vivo. In wheat, this is possible using protoplast isolation and PEG transformation with Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Therefore, we have developed a streamlined protocol for testing the accessibility of sgRNA targets in wheat. The first steps involve digesting wheat leaf tissue in an enzymatic solution and then isolating viable protoplasts using filters and a sucrose gradient. The protoplasts are then transformed using Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes via PEG-mediated transformation. DNA is isolated from the CRISPR-Cas-edited protoplasts and PCR is performed to amplify the gene target region. The PCR product is then used to assess the editing efficiency of the chosen sgRNA using Sanger sequencing. This simplified protocol for the isolation and transformation of wheat protoplast cells using Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes streamlines CRISPR transformation projects by allowing for a fast and easy test of sgRNA accessibility in vivo.

Background: Balance, mobility impairments and falls are common problems for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Our ongoing research has led to the development of Balance Right in MS (BRiMS), a 13-week home- and group-based exercise and education programme intended to improve balance and encourage safer mobility. Objective: This feasibility trial aimed to obtain the necessary data and operational experience to finalise the planning of a future definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial. Design: Randomised controlled feasibility trial. Participants were block randomised 1 : 1. Researcher-blinded assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 15 and 27 weeks post randomisation. As is appropriate in a feasibility trial, statistical analyses were descriptive rather than involving formal/inferential comparisons. The qualitative elements utilised template analysis as the chosen analytical framework. Setting: Four sites across the UK. Participants: Eligibility criteria included having a diagnosis of secondary progressive MS, an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of between ≥ 4.0 and ≤ 7.0 points and a self-report of two or more falls in the preceding 6 months. Interventions: Intervention – manualised 13-week education and exercise programme (BRiMS) plus usual care. Comparator – usual care alone. Main outcome measures: Trial feasibility, proposed outcomes for the definitive trial (including impact of MS, mobility, quality of life and falls), feasibility of the BRiMS programme (via process evaluation) and economic data. Results: A total of 56 participants (mean age 59.7 years, standard deviation 9.7 years; 66% female; median EDSS score of 6.0 points, interquartile range 6.0–6.5 points) were recruited in 5 months; 30 were block randomised to the intervention group. The demographic and clinical data were broadly comparable at baseline; however, the intervention group scored worse on the majority of baseline outcome measures. Eleven participants (19.6%) withdrew or were lost to follow-up. Worsening of MS-related symptoms unrelated to the trial was the most common reason (n = 5) for withdrawal. Potential primary and secondary outcomes and economic data had completion rates of > 98% for all those assessed. However, the overall return rate for the patient-reported falls diary was 62%. After adjusting for baseline score, the differences between the groups (intervention compared with usual care) at week 27 for the potential primary outcomes were MS Walking Scale (12-item) version 2 –7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) –17.2 to 1.8], MS Impact Scale (29-item) version 2 (MSIS-29vs2) physical 0.6 (95% CI –7.8 to 9) and MSIS-29vs2 psychological –0.4 (95% CI –9.9 to 9) (negative score indicates improvement). After the removal of one outlier, a total of 715 falls were self-reported over the 27-week trial period, with substantial variation between individuals (range 0–93 falls). Of these 715 falls, 101 (14%) were reported as injurious. Qualitative feedback indicated that trial processes and participant burden were acceptable, and participants highlighted physical and behavioural changes that they perceived to result from undertaking BRiMS. Engagement varied, influenced by a range of condition- and context-related factors. Suggestions to improve the utility and accessibility of BRiMS were highlighted. Conclusions: The results suggest that the trial procedures are feasible and acceptable, and retention, programme engagement and outcome completion rates were sufficient to satisfy the a priori progression criteria. Challenges were experienced in some areas of data collection, such as completion of daily diaries. Future work: Further development of BRiMS is required to address logistical issues and enhance user-satisfaction and adherence. Following this, a definitive trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the BRiMS intervention is warranted. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13587999. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.