Unpacking how trust, communication and flow interact to sustain quality relationships between disabled people, family and support workers: a realist qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Many disabled people require support workers to complete personal care, daily tasks and participate in life roles. Due to the intimate nature of community disability support in domestic environments, understanding what facilitates positive relationships is paramount. We examined the intricate interplay of context and mechanisms that drive positive relationship outcomes for disabled people, their family members and support workers. METHODS: A realist-informed, participatory methodology involving three participant groups: disabled people, family members, and disability support workers. RESULTS: Sixteen participants participated in two workshops per group (5 disabled people, 5 family members, and 6 disability support workers). All three participant groups prioritised three key generative mechanism processes involved in positive relationship outcomes: (1) having clear communication, (2) building trust, and (3) developing a sense of flow. We describe how each mechanism manifested in a unique way for each group, and also how the activation of each mechanism was influenced by a dynamic resources/tensions balance specific to each group. CONCLUSION: We describe the interaction between three mechanism processes involved in triadic relationships between disabled people, family members, and support workers. Attention is now required to explore strategies to negotiate the resource/tension balance particular to each group.

Clear communication, building trust, and developing flow are crucial mechanisms necessary for positive and sustainable relationships between disabled people, family members, and support workers.However, we need to consider the intricate interplay of these mechanisms within triadic relationships between disabled people, family members, and support workers when enacting strategies to support sustainable relationships.By understanding the specific ways these mechanisms are activated differently for disabled people, family, and support workers, rehabilitation professionals can better tailor community care processes.This will promote greater efficacy of disability support systems and inform more effective, strategic distribution of resources.

Exploring In-Session Engagement in Equine-Assisted Services for Children and Youth Experiencing Disability: A Scoping Review.

Aims: The purpose of this review was to identify and describe the evidence about children and youth engagement during equine-assisted services (EAS). Methods: Five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and MEDLINE) were systematically searched. Included studies reported research about EAS conducted in children and youth and presented findings about in-session engagement or associated concepts such as motivation, involvement, and participation. Extracted data (study type, equine intervention, population, and the studies' key focus) were summarized descriptively, followed by inductive content analysis of the main mechanisms proposed to influence engagement. Results: In total, 30 studies were identified; however, only three centered on rider engagement as the primary focus of research. Other publications addressed in-session engagement within service descriptions or results and discussion sections. Three mechanisms that influence engagement within EAS were derived: (1) the unique EAS landscape, (2) the horse-child relationship and (3) the provider-child relationship. The literature primarily referred to horses as the most important factor influencing child and youth engagement in EAS sessions. Little attention was given to the influence of service providers', parents', or child preferences on engagement. Conclusions: The child/youth-parent-provider relational triad and specific strategies to improve rider engagement within EAS sessions warrants further investigation.

Designing studies and reviews to produce informative, trustworthy evidence about complex interventions in rehabilitation: a narrative review and commentary.

According to Cochrane Rehabilitation's recently published definition for research purposes, rehabilitation is inherently complex. Rehabilitation teams frequently implement multiple strategies concurrently, draw on input from a range of different health professionals, target multiple outcomes, and personalize therapeutic plans. The success of rehabilitation lies not only in the specific therapies employed, but also in how they are delivered, when they are delivered, and the capability and willingness of patients to engage in them. In 2021, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) released the second major update of its framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. This framework has direct relevance to the development and implementation of evidence-based practice in the field of rehabilitation. While previous iterations of this framework positioned complex interventions as anything that involved multiple components, multiple people, multiple settings, multiple targets of effect, and behavior change, this latest framework expanded on this concept of complexity to also include the characteristics and influence of the context in which interventions occur. The revised MRC-NIHR framework presents complex intervention research as comprising the following four inter-related and overlapping phases: 1) development or identification of the intervention; 2) feasibility; 3) evaluation; and 4) implementation, with different methods and tools required to address each of these phases. This paper provides an overview of the MRC-NIHR framework and its application to rehabilitation, with examples from past research. Rehabilitation researchers are encouraged to learn about the MRC-NIHR framework and its application. Funders of rehabilitation research are also encouraged to place greater emphasis on supporting studies that involve the right design to address key uncertainties in rehabilitation clinical practice. This will require investment into a broader range of types of research than simply individual-level randomized controlled trials. Rehabilitation research can both learn from and contribute to future iterations of the MRC-NIHR framework as it is an excellent environment for exploring complexity in clinical practice.