Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service. METHODS: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians' professional peak-body associations' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.

Research capacity and culture in an Australian metropolitan public mental health service: scoping the skills and experience of social workers and occupational therapists.

BACKGROUND: Investment in a clinical research culture appears to be associated with benefits for consumers, staff, and overall organisational performance. The validated 55-item Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was developed specifically to gauge the research capacity and culture of health professionals and workplace settings within which they work. Results of some individual studies suggest that professional discipline and workplace setting may impact RCC results however it has never been used in a dedicated public mental health setting. Therefore, this study will explore the research capacity and culture of allied mental health clinicians (Part 1). Another aim is to explore potential connections between workplace settings, locations and disciplines based on published RCC-based data to help signpost potential impediments to service improvements (Part 2). METHODS: Part 1: An RCC-based online survey canvased Australian Social Workers and Occupational Therapists (n = 59) based in a metropolitan public mental health service. Non-parametric analyses explored links between research-related experience and participant characteristics. Part 2: Comparative analyses explored the potential influence of workplace settings and professional disciplines on published RCC results. RESULTS: Part 1: Overall, the research capacity and experiences of mental health Social Workers and Occupational Therapists seemed modest. Discipline was statistically associated with level of research-activity experience, weighted towards occupational therapy; demographic characteristics were not. Only two items in the RCC were rated high; many more items were rated low. Part 2: Published studies exploration found no link between RCC ratings and workplace location, setting, or professional discipline. Sampling biases and use of modified, non-validated RCC versions likely impacted the results. CONCLUSIONS: Allied mental health clinicians may not be sufficiently experienced, knowledgeable, or confident with a range of research-related activities given the emphasis on workforce research capability in policy and practice nowadays. This may be commonplace across health-based organisations. We recommend the systematic implementation of research training programs in (mental) health services, and a 'whole-of-service levels' approach be used i.e., transform policy, culture and leadership as well as provide practical resources with individual training. Potential benefits include a positive impact on organisation functioning, clinicians' confidence and practice, and improved consumer outcomes.

Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence-based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence-based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non-tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well-being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three-arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence-based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health-related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost-effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

The effectiveness of somatosensory retraining for improving sensory function in the arm following stroke: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate if somatosensory retraining programmes assist people to improve somatosensory discrimination skills and arm functioning after stroke. DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were systematically searched: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, Embase, Amed, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, OT seeker, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included for review if they involved (1) adult participants who had somatosensory impairment in the arm after stroke, (2) a programme targeted at retraining somatosensation, (3) a primary measure of somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm, and (4) an intervention study design (e.g. randomized or non-randomized control designs). RESULTS: A total of 6779 articles were screened. Five group trials and five single case experimental designs were included ( N = 199 stroke survivors). Six studies focused exclusively on retraining somatosensation and four studies focused on somatosensation and motor retraining. Standardized somatosensory measures were typically used for tactile, proprioception, and haptic object recognition modalities. Sensory intervention effect sizes ranged from 0.3 to 2.2, with an average effect size of 0.85 across somatosensory modalities. A majority of effect sizes for proprioception and tactile somatosensory domains were greater than 0.5, and all but one of the intervention effect sizes were larger than the control effect sizes, at least as point estimates. Six studies measured motor and/or functional arm outcomes ( n = 89 participants), with narrative analysis suggesting a trend towards improvement in arm use after somatosensory retraining. CONCLUSION: Somatosensory retraining may assist people to regain somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm after stroke.

Changing practice in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory loss in stroke survivors: protocol for a knowledge translation study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of somatosensory loss in the upper limb after stroke has been historically overshadowed by therapy focused on motor recovery. A double-blind randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the effectiveness of SENSe (Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation) therapy to retrain somatosensory discrimination after stroke. Given the acknowledged prevalence of upper limb sensory loss after stroke and the evidence-practice gap that exists in this area, effort is required to translate the published research to clinical practice. The aim of this study is to determine whether evidence-based knowledge translation strategies change the practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of sensory loss of the upper limb after stroke to improve patient outcomes. METHOD/DESIGN: A pragmatic, before-after study design involving eight (n = 8) Australian health organizations, specifically sub-acute and community rehabilitation facilities. Stroke survivors (n = 144) and occupational therapists and physiotherapists (~10 per site, ~n = 80) will be involved in the study. Stroke survivors will be provided with SENSe therapy or usual care. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be provided with a multi-component approach to knowledge translation including i) tailoring of the implementation intervention to site-specific barriers and enablers, ii) interactive group training workshops, iii) establishing and fostering champion therapists and iv) provision of written educational materials and online resources. Outcome measures for occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be pre- and post-implementation questionnaires and audits of medical records. The primary outcome for stroke survivors will be change in upper limb somatosensory function, measured using a standardized composite measure. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence and a template for knowledge translation in clinical, organizational and policy contexts in stroke rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) retrospective registration ACTRN12615000933550 .

Change in Functional Arm Use Is Associated With Somatosensory Skills After Sensory Retraining Poststroke.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated changes in functional arm use after retraining for stroke-related somatosensory loss and identified whether such changes are associated with somatosensory discrimination skills. METHOD: Data were pooled (N = 80) from two randomized controlled trials of somatosensory retraining. We used the Motor Activity Log to measure perceived amount of arm use in daily activities and the Action Research Arm Test to measure performance capacity. Somatosensory discrimination skills were measured using standardized modality-specific measures. RESULTS: Participants' arm use improved after somatosensory retraining (z = -6.80, p < .01). Change in arm use was weakly associated with somatosensation (tactile, ß = 0.31, p < .01; proprioception, ß = -0.17, p > .05; object recognition, ß = 0.13, p < .05). CONCLUSION: Change in daily arm use was related to a small amount of variance in somatosensory outcomes. Stroke survivors' functional arm use can increase after somatosensory retraining, with change varying among survivors.

A Network of Sites and Upskilled Therapists to Deliver Best-Practice Stroke Rehabilitation of the Arm: Protocol for a Knowledge Translation Study.

Implementation of evidence-informed rehabilitation of the upper limb is variable, and outcomes for stroke survivors are often suboptimal. We established a national partnership of clinicians, survivors of stroke, researchers, healthcare organizations, and policy makers to facilitate change. The objectives of this study are to increase access to best-evidence rehabilitation of the upper limb and improve outcomes for stroke survivors. This prospective pragmatic, knowledge translation study involves four new specialist therapy centers to deliver best-evidence upper-limb sensory rehabilitation (known as SENSe therapy) for survivors of stroke in the community. A knowledge-transfer intervention will be used to upskill therapists and guide implementation. Specialist centers will deliver SENSe therapy, an effective and recommended therapy, to stroke survivors in the community. Outcomes include number of successful deliveries of SENSe therapy by credentialled therapists; improved somatosensory function for stroke survivors; improved performance in self-selected activities, arm use, and quality of life; treatment fidelity and confidence to deliver therapy; and for future implementation, expert therapist effect and cost-effectiveness. In summary, we will determine the effect of a national partnership to increase access to evidence-based upper-limb sensory rehabilitation following stroke. If effective, this knowledge-transfer intervention could be used to optimize the delivery of other complex, evidence-based rehabilitation interventions.

Experiences of Upper Limb Somatosensory Retraining in Persons With Stroke: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore experiences of upper limb somatosensory discrimination retraining in persons with stroke. METHODS: A qualitative methodology was used within the context of a randomized control trial of somatosensory retraining: the CoNNECT trial. Participants in the CoNNECT trial completed a treatment program, known as SENSe therapy, to retrain upper limb somatosensory discrimination and recognition skills, and use of these skills in personally valued activities. Eight participants were interviewed on their experience of this therapy. Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). RESULTS: Five themes represented participants' experiences of upper limb somatosensory retraining after stroke: (1) loss of sensation and desire to reclaim normality; (2) harnessing positivity in the therapeutic relationship and specialized therapy; (3) facing cognitive and emotional challenges; (4) distinct awareness of gains and differences in bodily sensations; and (5) improved functioning: control and choice in daily performance. Persons with stroke experienced somatosensory retraining as a valuable treatment that provided them with sensory and functional gains. CONCLUSION: Upper limb somatosensory retraining is a treatment that persons with stroke perceived as challenging and rewarding. People who have experienced stroke believed that somatosensory retraining therapy assisted them to improve their sensation, functional arm use, as well as daily performance and participation in life.

Initial severity of somatosensory impairment influences response to upper limb sensory retraining post-stroke.

BACKGROUND: Somatosensory loss occurs often following stroke. A proportional recovery model is proposed for spontaneous motor recovery, with implication for treatment planning. It is currently unknown if initial severity of sensory impairment influences stroke survivors' response to treatment to improve sensation. OBJECTIVE: To examine if initial (pre-treatment) severity of upper limb somatosensory impairment is related to sensation outcomes following treatment. METHODS: Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between initial and post-treatment sensation performance. Data were pooled from two randomized controlled trials of somatosensory discrimination retraining (N = 80). Upper limb somatosensation was measured using standardized tests of sensory discrimination: Fabric Matching Test, Wrist Position Sense Test, and functional Tactile Object Recognition Test. RESULTS: Post-treatment somatosensory improvement patterns were proportional to the extent of initial pre-treatment somatosensory impairment (Texture discrimination: B = 0.74, 95% CIs [0.52, 0.96]; Proprioception: B = 0.35, 95% CIs [0.24, 0.47]; Object recognition: B = 0.85, 95% CIs [0.75, 0.95]). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of somatosensory retraining on post-treatment sensation was proportional to the extent of upper limb initial somatosensory impairment. Findings suggest sensory retraining can benefit stroke survivors of varying severity of sensory impairment, including those with more severe somatosensory loss.

The State-of-the-Science on Somatosensory Function and Its Impact on Daily Life in Adults and Older Adults, and Following Stroke: A Scoping Review.

The aim was to identify and synthesize research evidence about how adults and older adults process somatosensory information in daily activities, and the interventions available to regain somatosensory function following stroke. We developed two interacting concept maps to address the research questions. The scoping review was conducted from 2005 to 2015 across Web of Science, AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsychInfo databases. Search terms included somatosensory, perception, performance, participation, older adult, stroke, intervention, discrimination, learning, and neuroplasticity. Contributions from 103 articles for Concept 1 and 14 articles for Concept 2 are reported. Measures of somatosensory processing, performance, and participation used are identified. Interventions available to treat somatosensory loss are summarized in relation to approach, outcome measures, and theory/mechanisms underlying. A gap exists in the current understanding of how somatosensory function affects the daily lives of adults. A multidisciplinary approach that includes performance and participation outcomes is recommended to advance the field.