Spatient, Parent, and Physical Therapist Perceptions of Rehabilitation Following Acl Reconstruction: a Multiple Stakeholder Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is challenging for adolescent patients concurrently experiencing growth and development, changes in attitudes and social interactions, and a gradual shift toward independence. While there have been attempts to describe and compare the perceptions of the rehabilitation process among adolescent patients and their parents, the perceptions of stakeholders outside the family unit such as the treating physical therapist (PT), have not been investigated. Developing a more nuanced understanding of stakeholder perceptions of interpersonal communication and consistency of expectations would enable researchers and clinicians to provide specific recommendations for interpersonal communication and information sharing. Hypothesis/Purpose: To describe and compare the perceptions of information sharing and interpersonal communication among adolescent patients recovering from ACLR, one of their parents, and the PT primarily responsible for their rehabilitative care. Methods: We completed a cross-sectional, qualitative study in which adolescent patients who had recently completed physical rehabilitation after ACLR (N=9, age=15.7±1.6, months since surgery=5.9±1.9), one of their parents (N=9), and their PT (N=9, years of experience=14.9±8.4) completed semi-structured interviews. The interview scripts for patients, parents, and PTs intentionally addressed the same topics, with only minor modifications in wording as appropriate for each role. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a hybrid of deductive/inductive coding by trained members of the study team. Results: Our findings indicate that parents and PTs tend to underestimate the psychological trauma and social isolation experienced by patients throughout rehabilitation (Figure 1). Additionally, patients and parents indicated that a pre-operative lack of information about the rehabilitation process hindered their ability to ask informed questions or seek additional information from the PT and surgeon after surgery. Parents and patients consistently described a need for enhanced access to medical providers and regularly updated digital educational resources to improve their knowledge of the ACLR procedure, the rehabilitation timeline, and the resources available to them (e.g., mental health support) in order to overcome these barriers. Conclusion: Participants from all stakeholder groups reported that orthopedic surgeons and other members of the healthcare team may consider being more consistent when setting expectations, physical restrictions, and recovery timelines. All stakeholder groups agreed that increased frequency of communication between the members of the healthcare team would be beneficial in ensuring that patients are meeting progress expectations and all members of the healthcare team have a shared understanding of the patients’ needs and desires. [Figure: see text]
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».