Physical Therapy Korea (한국전문물리치료학회지)

Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy (한국전문물리치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Qualitative Evaluation of Short-Term Intensive Home-Based Rehabilitation Program for Disabilities Through In-Depth Interview: Community-Based Participatory Research Approach

지역사회기반 참여연구 방법에 입각한 단기집중 방문재활프로그램 질적 평가: 치료사와 대상자 심층면담을 중심으로

  • Lee, Min-young (Dept. of Public Health Science, The Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Eun-seung (Seoul Jung-gu Public Health Center) ;
  • Yoon, Bum-chul (Dept. of Public Health Science, The Graduate School, Korea University)
  • 이민영 (고려대학교 일반대학원 보건과학과) ;
  • 김은성 (서울시 중구 보건소) ;
  • 윤범철 (고려대학교 일반대학원 보건과학과)
  • Received : 2016.01.07
  • Accepted : 2016.04.08
  • Published : 2016.05.21
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach is recognized in the field of health promotion as a way to optimize intervention for promoting health by taking into account specific social, economical, and institutional situations of the community. However, the CBPR approach has not been applied in the field of community-based rehabilitation. Objects: This study was conducted to explore the self-perceived satisfaction of therapists and disabilities on the Short-term Intensive Home-based Rehabilitation (SIHR) program developed using the CBPR approach as well as determine the points that need improvement. Methods: This research was conducted through in-depth interviews. The SIHR program was developed, applied, and evaluated by both the researchers and four therapists on the basis of the CBPR approach. The SIHR program was administered to four disability for 1 hour a day, 2 or 3 times a week, for 8 weeks, and their self-rehabilitation was monitored once a week for 4 weeks. After all intervention periods, in-depth interviews were conducted by using a semi-structured questionnaire for the therapists and disability. Results: The therapists were satisfied with the contents of the SIHR program, such as behavioral change technique and goal-directed training. They were also satisfied with the process of developing the program through a community network. Disabilities were satisfied with the therapists' persuasive and emotionally interactive way of delivering the SIHR program as well as the individually customized rehabilitation training and physical improvement. The short period (8 weeks) of the SIHR program was noted by both therapists and disabilities as the part that needs improvement. Conclusion: The SIHR program developed using the CBPR approach was feasible and satisfying to therapists and disabilities. However, a longer SIHR program should be developed. Community networks could help therapists effectively utilize community resources and thereby provide more rehabilitation program for persons with disability.

Keywords

References

  1. Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):379-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379
  2. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thausand Oaks, SAGE Publication Inc., 2007:35-41.
  3. Deci, EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. 1st ed. New York, Plenum Press, 1985:11-39.
  4. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  5. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.47
  6. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared? Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633-2642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729863
  7. Jeon BY, Kwon SM. Access barriers to health care among persons with physical disabilities: Using three reasons for unmet need as indicators of access. Korean Social Security Studies. 2015;31(3):145-171.
  8. Jones CA, Roop SC, Pohar SL, et al. Translating knowledge in rehabilitation: Systematic review. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):663-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130512
  9. Khasnabis C, Heinicke Matsch K, Achu K, et al. Community-Based Rehabilitation: CBR guidelines. Geneva, World Health Organization. 2010:23.
  10. Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Long Hear Res. 2008;51(1):S225-S239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018)
  11. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: Its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2006;19(1):84-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000200544.29915.cc
  12. Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(3):214-222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
  13. Mastos M, Miller K, Elliasson AC, et al. Goal-directed training: Linking theories of treatment to clinical practice for improved functional activities in daily life. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(1):47-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215506073494
  14. Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, et al. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011;26(11):1479-1498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.540664
  15. Nanninga CS, Postema K, Schonherr MC, et al. Combined clinical and home rehabilitation: Case report of an integrated knowledge-to-action study in a dutch rehabilitation stroke unit. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):558-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130495
  16. National Rehabilitation Center. Guideline for the community-based integrated health promotion program. Seoul, National Rehabilitation Center, 2014:25-28.
  17. Nicholas P, Hefford C, Tumilty S. The use of the patient-specific functional scale to measure rehabilitative progress in a physiotherapy setting. J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):147-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000006
  18. Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. CA, US. Sage Publications. 1990:169-186.
  19. Richardson J, DePaul V, Officer A, et al. Development and evaluation of self-management and task-oriented approach to rehabilitation training (START) in the home: Case report. Phys Ther. 2015;95(6): 934-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130617
  20. Salimi Y, Shahandeh K, Malekafzali H, et al. Is community-based participatory research (CBPR) useful? A systematic review on papers in a decade. Int J Prev Med. 2012;3(6):386-393.
  21. van Twillert S, Postema K, Geertzen JH, et al. Incorporating self-management in prosthetic rehabilitation: Case report of an integrated knowledge-to-action process. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4): 640-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130489
  22. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S40-S46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036
  23. Winstein C, Lewthwaite R, Blanton SR, et al. Infusing motor learning research into neurorehabilitation practice: A historical perspective with case exemplar from the accelerated skill acquisition program. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2014;38(3):190-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000046
  24. Yoo SH. Using community-based participatory research (CBPR) for health promotion. Korean J Health Edu Promot. 2009;26(1):141-158.