Therapists' Use of the Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) Intervention: A Practice Implementation Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only a small percentage of research is ever successfully translated into practice. The Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) is a stroke rehabilitation intervention that anecdotally has had rapid translation from research to clinical practice. This study was conducted to explore the characteristics of this practice implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to explore the extent of practice implementation of GRASP in the United Kingdom; (2) using an implementation framework, to explore UK therapists' opinions of implementing GRASP; and (3) if GRASP is found to be used in the United Kingdom, to investigate differences in opinions between therapists who are using GRASP in practice and those who are not. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design was used. METHODS: Data were collected via an online questionnaire. Participants in this study were members of the College of Occupational Therapy Specialist Section Neurological Practice and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists Interested in Neurology. RESULTS: Of the 274 therapists who responded to the survey, 61 (22.3%) had experience of using GRASP, 114 (41.6%) knew of GRASP but had never used it, and 99 (36.1%) had never heard of GRASP. Therapists displayed positive opinions toward the implementation of a manual with graded progressions of structured upper limb exercises for people after stroke. Opinions were different between therapists who had used GRASP and those who had not. LIMITATIONS: The findings of this study may be limited by response bias. CONCLUSIONS: GRASP is a relatively new stroke rehabilitation intervention that has made impressive translation into the knowledge and practice of UK therapists. Therapists' opinions would suggest that GRASP is both an acceptable and feasible intervention and has the potential to be implemented by a greater number of therapists in a range of settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".