What matters to program partners when implementing a community-based exercise program for people post-stroke? A theory-based qualitative study and cost analysis.

Background: Community-based exercise programs integrating a healthcare-community partnership (CBEP-HCP) can facilitate lifelong exercise participation for people post-stroke. Understanding the process of implementation from multiple perspectives can inform strategies to promote program sustainability. Purpose: To explore stakeholders' experiences with undertaking first-time implementation of a group, task-oriented CBEP-HCP for people post-stroke and describe associated personnel and travel costs. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study within a pilot randomized controlled trial. In three cities, trained fitness instructors delivered a 12-week CBEP-HCP targeting balance and mobility limitations to people post-stroke at a recreation centre with support from a healthcare partner. Healthcare and recreation managers and personnel at each site participated in semi-structured interviews or focus groups by telephone post-intervention. Interviews and data analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework, for managers and program providers, respectively. We estimated personnel and travel costs associated with implementing the program. Results: Twenty individuals from three sites (4 recreation and 3 healthcare managers, 7 fitness instructors, 3 healthcare partners, and 3 volunteers) participated. We identified two themes related to the decision to partner and implement the program: (1) Program quality and packaging, and cost-benefit comparisons influenced managers' decisions to partner and implement the CBEP-HCP, and (2) Previous experiences and beliefs about program benefits influenced staff decisions to become instructors. We identified two additional themes related to experiences with training and program delivery: (1) Program staff with previous experience and training faced initial role-based challenges that resolved with program delivery, and (2) Organizational capacity to manage program resource requirements influenced managers' decisions to continue the program. Participants identified recommendations related to partnership formation, staff/volunteer selection, training, and delivery of program activities. Costs (in CAD) for first-time program implementation were: healthcare partner ($680); fitness coordinators and instructors ($3,153); and participant transportation (personal vehicle: $283; public transit: $110). Conclusion: During first-time implementation of a CBEP-HCP, healthcare and hospital managers focused on cost, resource requirements, and the added-value of the program, while instructors and healthcare partners focused on their preparedness for the role and their ability to manage individuals with balance and mobility limitations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122626. Registered April 17, 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03122626.

Community-based exercise programs incorporating healthcare-community partnerships to improve function post-stroke: feasibility of a 2-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for community-based exercise programs supported through healthcare-community partnerships (CBEP-HCPs) to improve function post-stroke, insufficient trial evidence limits widespread program implementation and funding. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a CBEP-HCP compared to a waitlist control group to improve everyday function among people post-stroke. METHODS: We conducted a 3-site, pilot randomized trial with blinded follow-up evaluations at 3, 6, and 10 months. Community-dwelling adults able to walk 10 m were stratified by site and gait speed and randomized (1:1) to a CBEP-HCP or waitlist control group. The CBEP-HCP involved a 1-h, group exercise class, with repetitive and progressive practice of functional balance and mobility tasks, twice a week for 12 weeks. We offered the exercise program to the waitlist group at 10 months. We interviewed 13 participants and 9 caregivers post-intervention and triangulated quantitative and qualitative results. Study outcomes included feasibility of recruitment, interventions, retention, and data collection, and potential effect on everyday function. RESULTS: Thirty-three people with stroke were randomized to the intervention (n = 16) or waitlist group (n = 17). We recruited 1-2 participants/month at each site. Participants preferred being recruited by a familiar healthcare professional. Participants described a 10- or 12-month wait in the control group as too long. The exercise program was implemented per protocol across sites. Five participants (31%) in the intervention group attended fewer than 50% of classes for health reasons. In the intervention and waitlist group, retention was 88% and 82%, respectively, and attendance at 10-month evaluations was 63% and 71%, respectively. Participants described inclement weather, availability of transportation, and long commutes as barriers to attending exercise classes and evaluations. Among participants in the CBEP-HCP who attended ≥ 50% of classes, quantitative and qualitative results suggested an immediate effect of the intervention on balance, balance self-efficacy, lower limb strength, everyday function, and overall health. CONCLUSION: The CBEP-HCP appears feasible and potentially beneficial. Findings will inform protocol revisions to optimize recruitment, and program and evaluation attendance in a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03122626 . Registered April 21, 2017 - retrospectively registered.

Fitness coordinators' and fitness instructors' perspectives on implementing a task-oriented community exercise program within a healthcare-recreation partnership for people with balance and mobility limitations: a qualitative study.

Background: Healthcare organizations are partnering with recreation organizations to support the delivery of community-based exercise programs for people with balance and mobility limitations. The value and impact of support strategies provided by healthcare organizations, however, have not been examined.Objective: Study objectives were to explore fitness coordinators' and fitness instructors' experiences with implementing a task-oriented community-based exercise program for people with balance and mobility limitations within the context of a healthcare-recreation partnership.Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Fitness coordinators and instructors involved with delivering a licensed, group, task-oriented community-based exercise program for people with balance and mobility limitations supported by a healthcare-recreation partnership were interviewed by telephone. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed.Results: Eight fitness coordinators and 8 fitness instructors from 14 recreation centres were interviewed. Findings showed that healthcare-recreation partnerships help to optimize exercise program quality and safety through multiple strategies. Fitness coordinators and instructors still face challenges with program implementation at start-up and over time. Recommendations to address these challenges included increased training content related to adjusting exercises to accommodate participant abilities, 1-2 visits from a healthcare professional each program after initial program implementation, suggestions to increase exercise variety, and ongoing education.Conclusions: Findings clarify the role of healthcare organizations, ongoing challenges, and directions for improvement in this program delivery model.Implications for rehabilitationCommunity recreation centres can provide task-oriented exercise programs to help people with balance and mobility limitations safely engage in regular exerciseHealthcare organizations should provide specific supports to help increase the safety and quality of task-oriented exercise programs in recreation centresSupports include providing clear exercise guidelines, and a healthcare professional who trains fitness instructors, visits the program, answers questions between visits, promotes collaboration and information exchange between recreation centres, and provides ongoing education.

Facilitating Community-Based Exercise for People With Stroke: Cross-Sectional e-Survey of Physical Therapist Practice and Perceived Needs.

BACKGROUND: Educating people with stroke about community-based exercise programs (CBEPs) is a recommended practice that physical therapists are well positioned to implement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the provision of education about CBEPs to people with stroke, barriers to providing education, and preferences for resources to facilitate education among physical therapists in neurological practice. DESIGN: A cross-sectional e-survey of physical therapists treating adults with stroke in Ontario, Canada, was conducted. METHODS: A link to the questionnaire was emailed to physical therapists in a provincial stroke network, a provincial physical therapy association, and on hospital and previous research lists. RESULTS: Responses from 186 physical therapists were analyzed. The percentage of respondents who reported providing CBEP education was 84.4%. Only 36.6% reported typically providing education to ≥7 out of 10 patients with stroke. Physical (90.5%) and preventative (84.6%) health benefits of exercise were most frequently discussed. Therapists reported most commonly delivering education at discharge (73.7%). Most frequently cited barriers to educating patients were a perceived lack of suitable programs (53.2%) and a lack of awareness of local CBEPs (23.8%). Lists of CBEPs (94.1%) or brochures (94.1%) were considered to be facilitators. The percentage of physical therapists providing CBEP education varied across acute, rehabilitation, and public outpatient settings. LIMITATIONS: The percentage of physical therapists providing education may have been overestimated if respondents who deliver CBEP education were more likely to participate and if participants answered in a socially desirable way. CONCLUSIONS: Even though a high proportion of physical therapists provide CBEP education, education is not consistently delivered to the majority of patients poststroke. Although a CBEP list or brochure would facilitate education regarding existing CBEPs, efforts to implement CBEPs are needed to help overcome the lack of suitable programs.