Skip to main content

Patients’ and professionals’ perspectives on the consideration of patients’ convenient therapy periods as part of personalised rehabilitation: a focus group study with patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation

Abstract

Background

Research on the optimal period for administering health services, especially rehabilitation interventions, is scarce. The aims of this study were to explore the construct of patients’ convenient therapy periods and to identify indicators based on the perspectives of patients and different health professionals from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics.

Methods

This study was part of a larger project on patients’ convenient therapy periods following a mixed methods approach. In the current study a grounded theory approach was employed based on the use of focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were conducted in three different inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics. Patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics who were able to speak and to participate in conversations were included.

Results

A total of 41 persons, including 23 patients and 18 therapists, such as music and occupational therapists, participated in a total of six focus group interviews. The analysis of the focus group interviews resulted in the identification of a total of 1261 codes, which could be summarised in fifteen categories. However, these categories could be divided into five indicators and ten impact factors of convenient therapy periods. Identified indicators were verbal and non-verbal communication, mental functions, physiological needs, recreational needs, and therapy initiation.

Conclusions

The results provide initial evidence that convenient therapy periods are clinically relevant for patients and therapists. Different states of patients’ ability to effectively participate in a rehabilitation intervention exist. A systematic consideration of patients’ convenient therapy periods could contribute to a personalised and more efficient delivery of intervention in neurological rehabilitation. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to research convenient therapy periods.

Peer Review reports

Background

Physical and rehabilitation medicine is a medical speciality that focuses on the improvement of functioning based on a holistic multi-professional teamwork approach in acute, post-acute, post-early and long-term settings [1]. Rehabilitation is a broader concept which refers to “a set of interventions designed to optimize functioning and reduce disability in individuals with health conditions in interaction with their environment” [2].

Due to medical progress, there is an increasing call for personalisation in health care and rehabilitation interventions [3, 4]. In medicine, personalisation commonly refers to medication treatment which is tailored to the individual characteristics of a defined person or group of persons [5]. In rehabilitation personalisation refers to individualized rehabilitation programmes which are tailored to the patients’ health conditions and capabilities [6, 7]. However, literature on personalised, precision or tailored physical and rehabilitation medicine [4, 7] and the different sorts of related therapies such as music therapy [8,9,10], occupational therapy [11] or physiotherapy [12, 13] is scarce. Literature on personalised or tailored speech therapy does not exist at all. One aspect of personalisation is the appropriate timing of health care and rehabilitation interventions [5].

Besides other factors that determine patient outcomes of rehabilitation interventions, their appropriate timing is crucial, and thus is frequently addressed in health care and research. This is especially true for multi-professional clinical neurologic rehabilitation [14, 15]. For example, the critical window for recovery “a period of heightened plasticity in which the patient seems to be more responsive” to allied health services [16], such as physiotherapy, is essential for the outcome of neurologic rehabilitation services. However, research on the optimal periods for administering multi-professional rehabilitation interventions is scarce. Existing studies have focused on the optimal periods for physical strain in the field of physiotherapy [17], and for sessions in the psychotherapy setting [18] or on the timing and duration of rehabilitation interventions in recovery processes such as in stroke rehabilitation [19,20,21,22]. Additionally, attempts have been set to identify right intervals between and intensity of treatment sessions, with the aim to optimize patient outcomes [23]. Other studies focused on weekend allied health services and found positive effects on patient outcomes and costs [22, 24,25,26]. Furthermore, the temporal structure of the recovery after stroke has been explored [16].

An important construct related to the outcomes of rehabilitation services is patients’ engagement. Patients’ engagement in neurologic rehabilitation was found to improve functional outcomes for clients [27, 28]. Several studies showed that engaged patients achieved significantly better outcomes than nonengaged patients did [27, 29]. Engagement in physical and rehabilitation medicine refers to the patient’s involvement in rehabilitation and healthcare interventions [30]. There might be distinct periods in which patients’ ability to benefit from engagement enhancing interventions varies. However, the literature on engagement does not refer to such periods yet. To summarize, there is some evidence for the existence of distinct periods, where the delivery of treatment is most effective to improve therapy outcome and to reduce long-term impairment in neurologic rehabilitation.

There is no concept that describes a distinct period in which rehabilitation interventions within neurologic rehabilitation would have their greatest effects based on patients’ momentary ability to engage. However, the authors assume that these distinct and convenient periods for rehabilitation interventions do exist [31] that are called convenient therapy periods within this article. Based on their practical experience, the authors also assume that the ability to optimally benefit from a rehabilitation intervention might depend on patients’ time-limited enhanced responsiveness to the interventions and varies during a day.

Knowledge about patients’ convenient therapy periods and their indicators could help clinicians to identify and consider these periods in their clinical practice. The consideration of patients’ ability to respond or engage in rehabilitation interventions might have a positive effect on patients’ ability to benefit from rehabilitation interventions. Moreover, the consideration of patients’ convenient therapy periods could improve the effects of rehabilitation interventions, improve patient outcomes, and thereby save costs [22, 32].

Furthermore, it might be important to relate patients and health professionals’ preferences and perspectives to structural and organizational conditions of therapy [33, 34]. In clinical practice a consideration of convenient therapy periods in the scheduling and timing of therapy sessions could contribute to more suitable and effective music therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy or physiotherapy [23, 35].

The aims of this study were to explore the construct of patients’ convenient therapy periods and to identify indicators based on the perspectives of patients and different health professionals from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics.

Methods

This study was part of a larger project on patients’ convenient therapy periods following a mixed methods approach [31, 36, 37]. In the current study a grounded theory approach was employed based on the use of focus group interviews [38, 39], due to the absence of existing literature on the construction and definition of patients’ convenient periods for rehabilitation interventions. Grounded theory as a research approach includes iterative analyses, going back and forth the data, and encompasses comparison of the analysis and the original data [38, 39].

Participants

Patients and therapists from three inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics were recruited for this study by “Theoretical Sampling”, a specific grounded theory sampling approach, seeking pertinent data to develop the emerging theory [38]. Sample size was based on theoretical sampling. To fulfil the criteria for inclusion patients had an age of ≥18 years, were in phase c (post-early) rehabilitation, defined as phase in which patients are “cooperative but dependent for selfcare” [40, 41], and had already experienced two or more different rehabilitation interventions (e.g., occupational therapy and music therapy) at the time point of data collection. Additionally, patients had sufficient language skills, as well as mental and physical abilities and willingness to participate in a focus group. Therapists were included if they had worked at an inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinic for at least 1 year, had sufficient language skills and were willing to participate. Patients of different sex, age, and health conditions and/or diagnoses (e.g., stroke) and a wide range of therapists, including art therapists, music therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech therapists, were asked to participate.

Data collection

Participants received both verbal and written information on the study from the local study coordinators or principal investigators at the institution (names are not shown to ensure participants anonymity and confidentiality). Sex and age of all participants were recorded, as well as diagnosis and disease duration in the case of patients, and years of work experience and profession in the case of therapists. Focus group interviews were used to identify determinants of convenient therapy periods based on the perspectives of patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics. Focus group interviews are systematic discussions between individuals experiencing a specific phenomenon to gather insights into their experiences and perspectives concerning the issue of interest [42]. Focus group interviews are frequently used to explore patients’ and health professionals’ perspectives in rehabilitation research [34, 43]. Focus group interviews are led by a moderator who asks questions related to the specific focus. The content of the focus group interviews can be diverse and may run contrary to the expectations and presumptions of the focus group moderator and/or researcher. Compared to focus group interviews [44], one-to-one interviews can be restricted to the content directly asked by the interviewer and/or raised by the interviewee.

Local study coordinators organised dates, timeframes and conference rooms for the focus group interviews. In each inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinic, two focus group interviews, one with patients and one with therapists were conducted in spring 2017. The focus group interviews were led by one researcher, experienced in conducting focus group interviews (MD [PhD] or CW [Dr. phil.]) and assisted by another researcher (PÖ [Mag.], IZ [MSc], MD [PhD] or CW [Dr. Phil.]). One of these researchers (CW) knew one of the participating therapists prior to study commencement. The focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two audio recorders were placed on a table in the centre of the group. People who were not as involved in the conversation during the focus group were explicitly asked and invited to share their perspectives of the moderator.

Data analysis

Based on the grounded theory approach we used the so called constant comparative method and went through an iterative analysis process [38]. Firstly, the main analysts (MD and CW) delved into the interview transcripts to get an overview of the collected data. Secondly, initial codes were created from the data by extracting the content of every single proposition of the participants. Initial codes were single or several words, which referred to the content and the meaning of text sequences of the interview transcripts. Thirdly, focused coding and categorizing was employed in joint sessions by the two analysts (MD and CW). Most significant and frequent initial codes were sorted and synthesized into tentative categories, aggregates of interrelated codes. A constant comparison of categories, codes and original data allowed an evaluation of the relative usefulness of the empirically grounded core conceptual categories and an identification and exploration of their interrelations (MD and CW). Fourthly, based upon original quotes indicators for convenient therapy periods were identified and written down, discussed, and reflected in an interdisciplinary team of health professionals and researchers to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis. The team consisted of different health professionals and researchers from anthropology, general practice, linguistic science, music therapy, occupational therapy, and psychology, skilled and experienced in the use of qualitative research methods.

Ethical considerations

All participants received information about the study and gave written and oral informed consent for participation. The study was approved by two local ethics commissions, responsible for the two different states for the inpatient clinics in Austria. The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. In the given examples, pseudonyms were used to guarantee anonymity of the participants. Detailed and centre specific information about the focus groups content was not conveyed to the clinic staff members. The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.

Results

Participants

A total of 41 persons, including 23 patients and 18 therapists, participated in a total of six focus group interviews. Demographic data of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic data

The six focus group interviews had a mean duration of 85 min and six to nine participants. Further details on the focus group interviews are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of focus groups and results.

Categories and Indicators

The analysis of the focus group interviews resulted in the identification of a total of 237 codes for the patient focus groups and 1024 codes for therapist focus groups, which could be summarised in fifteen categories. However, these categories could be assigned to five indicators and ten impact factors of convenient therapy periods as presented in Fig. 1. Indicators were categories that have been described to imply patients’ momentary ability to benefit from a therapy session. Impact factors were categories that have been described to affect patients’ momentary ability to benefit from a therapy session. According to the study aim, we present those categories in the following, which were identified as indicators. Subsequently, each indicator is defined and substantiated by original quotes, as presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Table 2 Original quotes as example for the indicator verbal and non-verbal communication
Table 3 Original quotes as example for the indicator mental functions
Table 4 Original quotes as example for the indicator physiological needs
Table 5 Original quotes as example for the indicator recreational needs
Table 6 Original quotes as example for the indicator therapy initiation

Verbal and non-verbal communication

In the current study, communication included verbal and non-verbal communication. Verbal and non-verbal communication was described as indicator for convenient therapy periods from therapists only. Patients and therapists frequently talked about fatigue, exhaustion, and pain, as well as therapy related attitudes, enthusiasm, interest, motivation, and readiness. Therapists focused on non-verbal signals, such as complexion and facial expressions, gestures, muscle tone, posture, and transpiration. Table 2 contains selected original quotes as examples for verbal and non-verbal communication from patients and therapists.

Therapists emphasised the importance of one specific aspect of communication: They reported to be particularly attentive, both at the beginning and during a therapy session, to patients’ signals of their ability to benefit from the session. The information gathered at the very beginning of a specific therapy session is used to determine the characteristics of the rehabilitation intervention. The information gathered during the session allows therapists to adjust these characteristics to the changing ability of the patients to engage. Therapists reported that patients present different manifestations of their ability to benefit from the session and that this ability can be influenced. Some of these manifestations are amenable to improvement by rehabilitation intervention; others are not and are unlikely to change during the session.

Mental functions

Mental functions included commitment, arousal, attention, consciousness, emotions, energy and drive functions, impulse, motivation, and vigilance. Table 3 contains selected original quotes from patients and therapists as examples for mental functions.

Physiological needs

Physiological needs included basic needs of patients like hunger, thirst, and toileting needs, which can impede therapies when they are unfulfilled. Table 4 contains selected original quotes on physiological needs from therapists only, because patients did not address this topic directly in the focus group interviews.

Recreational needs

Recreational needs included needs for pauses, recreation, relaxation, rest, and sleep. Table 5 contains selected original quotes from patients and therapists as examples for recreational needs.

Therapy initiation

Therapists highlighted the importance of the very first moments of a therapy session and mentioned giving special attention to mood and body language. Therapists reported that patients responded either with a display of interest or lack of interest at the very beginning of a therapy session. Table 6 contains selected original quotes from patients and therapists as examples for therapy initiation.

Discussion

In the current study, we identified five indicators of convenient therapy periods based on the perspectives of patients and health professionals in neurorehabilitation. Other studies highlighted the importance of knowledge and consideration of the right period to provide specific health services [16,17,18,19,20,21, 33, 45,46,47,48]. The identified indicators have already been explored in health care research, but – to our knowledge – not in relation to convenient therapy periods.

The meaning of communication in the therapeutic setting is well researched. The content of communication relevant to this study included expressions of different aspects such as fatigue, pain, interest, or motivation. Of course, these aspects have been targets of numerous health care interventions [49]. However, their meaning for the therapeutic progress has not been researched so far.

Considering patients’ verbal and non-verbal signals, therapists highlighted the importance of the very first moments of a therapy session as part of rehabilitation interventions, where patients were found to respond either with a display of interest or lack of interest. This attention of therapists to patients’ signals at the very beginning of a therapy session may be related to the phenomenon of attunement. Attunement refers to a process encompassing therapists’ ability to perceive and to respond to patients’ inner state [50,51,52,53]. Attunement was found to be relevant in different sorts of rehabilitation interventions, such as music [54, 55] and occupational therapy [56]. However, attunement and convenient therapy periods have not been related so far.

The evaluation of mental functions is routine within therapeutic practice. For example, mental functions are commonly assessed to identify need for treatment or to evaluate the outcome of health care and rehabilitation interventions [57,58,59]. However, mental functions are assessed to determine impairment and therapy outcomes [59, 60], but not as indicators for patients’ momentary ability to benefit from a therapy session.

The detection and consideration of patients’ physiological needs is important in health care, especially when working with neurorehabilitation patients, who may not be able to express these needs clearly. For example, nurses and therapists, like occupational therapists, generally consider patients’ thirst, hunger, urge to use the toilet and any other physiological needs that may arise [61, 62]. However, the inclusion of physiological needs as indicators for convenient therapy periods has not been reported yet.

Recreational needs have been connected to spinal cord injury patients’ attendance of scheduled therapy sessions [63]. Fatigue was found to be one of the most common reasons for leaving out therapy sessions during inpatient rehabilitation. Another reason given was lack of patient readiness including “being unavailable” or “refusing recreational therapy sessions”. Patients left out an average of 20 h of their therapy during their inpatient rehabilitation [63]. Leaving out therapy sessions could be related to patients’ convenient therapy periods and therapy progress.

There seem to be (adaptive) states in which therapists were able to facilitate patients’ ability to benefit from the therapy session, by adjusting the therapeutic strain through using activating, motivating, or relaxing techniques. However, therapists also reported about patients who seemed to be in (stable) states of inconvenient therapy periods in which the delivery of rehabilitation interventions had not the desired effect. Patients’ adaptive states were reported previously in terms of their engagement in rehabilitation interventions. There is evidence, that patients’ engagement could be enhanced by therapists during rehabilitation. Strategies which were found to enhance patients’ engagement included interventions that promote trust, rapport, empowerment, and motivation [27, 64]. Patients’ ability to benefit from the therapy session might also be influenced by the therapeutic relationship [65] and patients’ engagement, which however needs further research.

Within the current study, we obtained initial knowledge that might influence therapeutic clinical practice in neurologic rehabilitation [66] and contribute to an increased consideration of convenient therapy periods in terms of flexible scheduling and conduction of health care services. This might have a positive impact on the outcomes of neurological rehabilitation services [33, 66, 67], patients’ satisfaction, the number of missed therapies and costs [63].

A systematic evaluation of patients’ convenient therapy periods could enable therapists to deliver a more personalised and efficient delivery of neurological rehabilitation services [68]. Consequently, a measurement instrument is needed to assess and address convenient therapy periods in the clinical practice. This measurement instrument is being developed and researched as part of a larger research project on patients’ convenient periods for rehabilitation interventions [31, 36, 37]. However, the follow-up studies are not part of this paper and will be published in the future. Therefore, an increased consideration of convenient therapy periods in the scheduling and conduction of rehabilitation interventions as well as a systematic assessment of patients’ convenient therapy periods in clinical practice is recommended.

Limitations

This study has several strengths and limitations. Data was purposeful and included three different rural inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics, located in two federate states of Austria. The inclusion of additional and urban inpatient neurological rehabilitation clinics could have led to other findings. Furthermore, the current study focused on convenient therapy periods of patients from neurological rehabilitation. Indicators for convenient therapy periods could differ between patients with diverse health conditions. Additionally, participants included patients with sufficient concentration and communication skills, and those who were transferable to the rooms of the focus groups, exclusively. Consequently, further research is needed to explore indicators for convenient therapy periods from the perspectives of bedridden patients and patients with limited concentration and communication skills. This study was part of a larger project on patients’ convenient therapy periods following mixed methods approach. However, mixed-methods studies often lack a detailed description of used methods [69]. Therefore, preliminary results of the analysis of only one part of the data collection and analysis are presented within this paper.

Conclusions

The findings of the current study provide first insights into convenient therapy periods and encourage the initiation of a scientific discourse on convenient therapy periods and their increasing consideration in neurological health service and research. A systematic consideration of patients’ convenient therapy periods could contribute to a personalised and more efficient delivery of intervention in neurological rehabilitation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to data protection law but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Gutenbrunner C, Meyer T, Melvin J, Stucki G. Towards a conceptual description of physical and rehabilitation medicine. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(9):760–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organisation. Rehabilitation in health systems. , vol. 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Janssen RMJ, Satink T, Ijspeert J, van Alfen N, Groothuis JT, Packer TL, et al. Reflections of patients and therapists on a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for persons with brachial plexus injuries. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(12):1427–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalron A, Nitzani D, Magalashvili D, Dolev M, Menascu S, Stern Y, et al. A personalized, intense physical rehabilitation program improves walking in people with multiple sclerosis presenting with different levels of disability: a retrospective cohort. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:21–1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Schleidgen S, Klingler C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor RS, Singh S. Personalised rehabilitation for cardiac and pulmonary patients with multimorbidity: time for implementation? Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;28(16):e19–e23.

  7. Mawson S, Nasr N, Parker J, Zheng H, Davies R, Mountain G. Developing a personalised self-management system for post stroke rehabilitation; utilising a user-centred design methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(6):521–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raeline R, Johnston TE. Hospice family caring behaviours during music therapy [online]. N Z J Music Ther. 2013;11:81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li SA, Bao L, Chrostowski M. Investigating the effects of a personalized, spectrally altered music-based sound therapy on treating tinnitus: a blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(5):296–304.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sleight P. Cardiovascular effects of music by entraining cardiovascular autonomic rhythms music therapy update: tailored to each person, or does one size fit all? Neth Hear J. 2013;21(2):99–100.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maekura R, Hiraga T, Miki K, Kitada S, Miki M, Yoshimura K, et al. Personalized pulmonary rehabilitation and occupational therapy based on cardiopulmonary exercise testing for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:1787–800.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Timmermans C, Roerdink M, Janssen TWJ, Beek PJ, Meskers CGM. Automatized, standardized, and patient-tailored progressive walking-adaptability training: a proof-of-concept study. Phys Ther. 2019;99(7):882–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Käll I, Larsson MEH, Bernhardsson S. Use of outcome measures improved after a tailored implementation in primary care physiotherapy: a prospective, controlled study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(5):668–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Basso DM, Lang CE. Consideration of dose and timing when applying interventions after stroke and spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2017;41:S24–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagnon D, Nadeau S, Tam V. Ideal timing to transfer from an acute care hospital to an interdisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation program following a stroke: an exploratory study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):151.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ballester BR, Maier M, Duff A, Cameirão M, Bermúdez S, Duarte E, et al. A critical time window for recovery extends beyond one-year post-stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2019;122(1):350–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tveter AT, Dagfinrud H, Moseng T, Holm I. Measuring health-related physical fitness in physiotherapy practice: reliability, validity, and feasibility of clinical field tests and a patient-reported measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(3):206–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manne S, Winkel G, Zaider T, Rubin S, Hernandez E, Bergman C. Therapy processes and outcomes of psychological interventions for women diagnosed with gynecological cancers: a test of the generic process model of psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78(2):236–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reuter B, Gumbinger C, Sauer T, Wietholter H, Bruder I, Diehm C, et al. Access, timing and frequency of very early stroke rehabilitation - insights from the Baden-Wuerttemberg stroke registry. BMC Neurol. 2016;16(1):222.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Magel J, Kim J, Fritz J, Freburger JK. Time between an emergency department visit and initiation of physical therapist intervention: health care utilization and costs. Phys Ther. 2020;100(10):1782–92.

  21. Kumar A, Adhikari D, Karmarkar A, Freburger J, Gozalo P, Mor V, et al. Variation in hospital-based rehabilitation services among patients with ischemic stroke in the United States. Phys Ther. 2019;99(5):494–506.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, Taylor NF. Is cost effectiveness sustained after weekend inpatient rehabilitation? 12 month follow up from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:165.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Clarke DJ, Burton LJ, Tyson SF, Rodgers H, Drummond A, Palmer R, et al. Why do stroke survivors not receive recommended amounts of active therapy? Findings from the ReAcT study, a mixed-methods case-study evaluation in eight stroke units. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(8):1119–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Duncan C, Hudson M, Heck C. The impact of increased weekend physiotherapy service provision in critical care: a mixed methods study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2015;31(8):547–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell D, O’Brien L, Bardoel A, Haines T. Challenges, uncertainties and perceived benefits of providing weekend allied health services—a managers’ perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):118.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. O'Brien L, Mitchell D, Skinner EH, Haas R, Ghaly M, McDermott F, et al. What makes weekend allied health services effective and cost-effective (or not) in acute medical and surgical wards? Perceptions of medical, nursing, and allied health workers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):345–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Danzl MM, Etter NM, Andreatta RD, Kitzman PH. Facilitating neurorehabilitation through principles of engagement. J Allied Health. 2012;41(1):35–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Miller KL. Patient centered care: a path to better health outcomes through engagement and activation. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;39:465–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moucha R, Kilgard MP. Cortical plasticity and rehabilitation. Prog Brain Res. 2006;157:111–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bright FAS, Kayes NM, Worrall L, McPherson KM. A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(8):643–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tucek G. Grant proposal for the application for a Josef Ressel center: horizons of personalized music therapy - researching music therapy processes and relationships in selected fields of neurologic rehabilitation. In: IMC University of Applied Sciences. Krems: Christian Doppler Research Association, Federal Minister of Science, Research and Economy, Niederösterreichische Landeskliniken-Holding, s-Team IT solutions GmbH; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hinman RS, Delany CM, Campbell PK, Gale J, Bennell KL. Physical therapists, telephone coaches, and patients with knee osteoarthritis: qualitative study about working together to promote exercise adherence. Phys Ther. 2016;96(4):479–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Capo-Lugo CE, Askew RL, Naidech A, Prabhakaran S. Patients with greater stroke severity and premorbid disability are less likely to receive therapist consultations and intervention during acute care hospitalization. Phys Ther. 2019;99(11):1431–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Calmon Almeida V, da Silva Junior WM, de Camargo OK, de Santana Filho VJ, Oliveira GU, Santana MS, et al. Do the commonly used standard questionnaires measure what is of concern to patients with low back pain? Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(10):1313–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rahlin M. An individualized intermittent intensive physical therapy schedule for a child with spastic quadriparesis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(7):512–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fachner JC, Maidhof C, Grocke D, Nygaard Pedersen I, Trondalen G, Tucek G, et al. “Telling me not to worry … ” Hyperscanning and neural dynamics of emotion processing during guided imagery and music. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1561.

  37. Tucek G. Studienprotokoll: Erfassung günstiger Therapiezeiträume bei Patientinnen und Patienten der Neurorehabilitation –Teil 2. In: Niederösterreichische Ethikkommission; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Glaser BG, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for Qualitaitve Research. 1st ed. New York: Aldine de Gruyeter; 1967.

  40. Rollnik JD, Janosch U. Current trends in the length of stay in neurological early rehabilitation. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(16):286–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Putman K, De Wit L. European comparison of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(1):20–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peek L, Fothergill A. Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and hurricane Katrina. Qual Res. 2009;9(1):31–59.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sutter-Leve R, Passint E, Ness D, Rindflesch A. The caregiver experience after stroke in a COVID-19 environment: a qualitative study in inpatient rehabilitation. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2021;45(1):14–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Clarke A. Focus group interviews in health-care research. Prof Nurse. 1999;14(6):395–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mohamadpour M, Whitney K, Bergold PJ. The importance of therapeutic time window in the treatment of traumatic brain injury. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:07.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hsu CY, Ahmed SH, Lees KR. The therapeutic time window--theoretical and practical considerations. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2000;9(6 Pt 2):24–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Aguilar-Salinas P, Santos R, Granja MF, Effendi S, Sauvageau E, Hanel R, et al. Republished: revisiting the therapeutic time window dogma: successful thrombectomy 6 days after stroke onset. J NeuroInterventional Surg. 2019;11(10):e8–8.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gittler M, Davis AM. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery. JAMA. 2018;319(8):820–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Taccolini Manzoni AC, Bastos de Oliveira NT, Nunes Cabral CM, Aquaroni Ricci N. The role of the therapeutic alliance on pain relief in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34(12):901–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Snyder J, Silberschatz G. The Patient's experience of attunement and responsiveness scale. Psychother Res. 2017;27(5):608–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Erskine G. Attunement and involvement: therapeutic responses to relational needs. Int J Psychother. 1998;3(3):235.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lawton M, Haddock G, Conroy P, Serrant L, Sage K. People with aphasia's perception of the therapeutic alliance in aphasia rehabilitation post stroke: a thematic analysis. Aphasiology. 2018;32(12):1397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Babatunde F, MacDermid J, MacIntyre N. Characteristics of therapeutic alliance in musculoskeletal physiotherapy and occupational therapy practice: a scoping review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):375.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Holck U, Geretsegger M. Musical and emotional attunement-unique and essential in music therapy with children on the autism spectrum. In: 10th European Music Therapy Conference, vol. 2016; 2016. p. 34–5.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Metzner S, Jaeger U, Masuhr O, Olschewski U, Gräfe E, Böske AC, et al. Forms of attunement during the initial stages of music therapy for patients with acute psychosis-A multicentre clinical study. Nord J Music Ther. 2018;27(5):360–80.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Weiste E. Relational interaction in occupational therapy: conversation analysis of positive feedback. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;25(1):44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. VanGilder JL, Hooyman A, Peterson DS, Schaefer SY. Post-stroke cognitive impairments and responsiveness to motor rehabilitation: a review. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2020;8(4):461–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Godefroy O, Yaïche H, Taillia H, Bompaire F, Nédélec-Ciceri C, Bonnin C, et al. Who should undergo a comprehensive cognitive assessment after a stroke? A cognitive risk score. Neurology. 2018;91(21):e1979–87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Abzhandadze T, Rafsten L, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Sunnerhagen KS. Feasibility of cognitive functions screened with the Montreal cognitive assessment in determining ADL dependence early after stroke. Front Neurol. 2018;9:705–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Yuan S, He Y. Effects of physical therapy on mental function in patients with stroke. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(2):300060519861164–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Herke M, Fink A, Langer G, Wustmann T, Watzke S, Hanff AM, et al. Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:Cd011542.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Legg LA, Lewis SR, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Drummond A, Langhorne P. Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:Cd003585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hammond FM, Lieberman J, Smout RJ, Horn SD, Dijkers MP, Backus D. Missed therapy time during inpatient rehabilitation for spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4 Suppl):S106–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lequerica AH, Donnell CS, Tate DG. Patient engagement in rehabilitation therapy: physical and occupational therapist impressions. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(9):753–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Horton A, Hebson G, Holman D. A longitudinal study of the turning points and trajectories of therapeutic relationship development in occupational and physical therapy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Vogl J, Heine AM, Steinhoff N, Weiss K, Tucek G. Neuroscientific and neuroanthropological perspectives in music therapy research and practice with patients with disorders of consciousness. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:273.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Haddock G, Conroy P, Serrant L, Sage K. People with aphasia’s perception of the therapeutic alliance in aphasia rehabilitation post stroke: a thematic analysis AU - Lawton, Michelle. Aphasiology. 2018;32(12):1397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Klingshirn H, Mittrach R, Braitmayer K, Strobl R, Bender A, Grill E, et al. RECAPDOC - a questionnaire for the documentation of rehabilitation care utilization in individuals with disorders of consciousness in long-term care in Germany: development and pretesting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):329.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Guetterman TC, Babchuk WA, Howell Smith MC, Stevens J. Contemporary approaches to mixed methods–grounded theory research: a field-based analysis. J Mixed Methods Res. 2019;13(2):179–95.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all persons who participated in the current study. We thank Iris Zoderer and Philipp Österreicher for their support in data collection. Additionally, we thank Tom Stanford, a native English-speaker, and Anna Röschel for reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development and the Christian Doppler Research Association is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MD, CW, and GT substantial conceptualized and designed the study. PS contributed to the conception, design and coordinated data collection. MD and CW collected data, carried out the initial analyses, drafted the initial manuscript and revised the manuscript. PS and GT discussed the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy. All authors meet the criteria for authorship stated in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Dür.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants received information about the study. The written informed consent was obtained from all participants for the study. The study was approved by two local ethics commissions: ethics commission of lower Austria (approval number GS1-EK-4/454–2017) and ethics commission Burgenland (approval number 80/2017). The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Some of the authors’ working hours (MD, CW & PS) were allocated to the research project of which the current study was part of. The research project was partially funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development and the Christian Doppler Research Association. Based on the funding conditions, a proportion of authors’ salaries, pursuant to project related work hours, were covered by the project costs. The funding parties had no influence on the study or the manuscript. The authors declare no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dür, M., Wenzel, C., Simon, P. et al. Patients’ and professionals’ perspectives on the consideration of patients’ convenient therapy periods as part of personalised rehabilitation: a focus group study with patients and therapists from inpatient neurological rehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 372 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07755-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07755-3

Keywords

  • Delivery of health care
  • Rehabilitation
  • Quality of health care
  • Health services research