Is a novel digital system for arm and hand rehabilitation suitable for stroke survivors? A qualitative process evaluation of OnTrack

FYI. I can draw no conclusions on this.

Is a novel digital system for arm and hand rehabilitation suitable for stroke survivors? A qualitative process evaluation of OnTrack

1. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4596-823XElizabeth Taylor1,
2. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7263-3398Gianpaolo Fusari2,
3. Ara Darzi2,
4. Fiona Jones3

1. Correspondence to Dr Elizabeth Taylor; etaylor@sgul.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives and design National guidelines emphasise the need to enhance arm and hand recovery poststroke. OnTrack is a 12-week package aiming to address this need. Feasibility was evaluated in a single-arm feasibility study (reported separately). This paper presents findings from a nested process evaluation. The objectives were to explore users’ experiences of OnTrack and fidelity of delivery, in order to inform a definitive trial of effectiveness and future delivery.

Setting Participants were interviewed in a range of settings in hospital, home or via telephone, at the end of their intervention cycle. Session observations for a selection of coaching sessions were carried out in person at home or remotely, post-COVID-19.

Participants Eleven participants who completed the intervention following a stroke were interviewed. Seven coaching sessions were observed.

Intervention This process evaluation was part of a larger feasibility study of OnTrack, which involves setting movement targets and monitoring activity using a tracker on the wrist, motivational messaging via a Smartphone and self-management coaching. Preliminary analysis of data collected was conducted with a public and patient involvement group formed of stroke survivors. This informed changes in intervention delivery.

Results Participants reported finding the OnTrack programme beneficial, with the coaching role seen as particularly important. Participants found activity tracking motivating, but some noted discrepancies between tracked movement and what they considered useful activity. Motivational messages were sometimes irritating. Most felt ready to sustain their own activity practice at the end of the programme.

Conclusions This process evaluation supported initial theoretical assumptions that OnTrack would enable activity practice through the use of remote monitoring. There was a strong emphasis on the coaching role as a mechanism of impact supporting the technological intervention. These findings will inform the next stages of delivery in a definitive trial.

Trial registration number NCT03944486.