Built environments to support rehabilitation for people with stroke from the hospital to the home (B-Sure): Protocol for a mixed-method participatory co- design study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3136832/v1

Download PDF

Study protocol

Built environments to support rehabilitation for people with stroke from the hospital to the home (B-Sure): Protocol for a mixed-method participatory co- design study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3136832/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

While the global trend is to shift rehabilitation closer to people's homes, the role of the non-hospital environment in stroke recovery has been understudied. This unique project aims to address this gap, understanding its crucial to successfully transition health services to local settings. We intend to develop models of built environments that enhance stroke rehabilitation and everyday activities, encouraging a 'taking charge' approach for persons with stroke.

Methods and analysis

This mixed-method project proceeds in three phases. Phase one identifies rehabilitation-supportive environmental factors. Phase two co-designs prototypes based on these findings, with the third phase evaluating the prototypes. Research methods include literature review, concept mapping, stakeholder interviews, prototype development, and testing. Quantitative data will be processed using multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics, while qualitative data will be subjected to content analysis. Location analyses will incorporate qualitative GIS data models.

Discussion

We seek to determine how supportive environments can facilitate patients' control over their rehabilitation process, daily activities, and recovery goals. This 'taking charge' approach is key to bringing care closer to home. By co-designing with multiple stakeholders, we aim for rapid solution implementation. The project's outcomes may extend to other frail or older individuals post-hospital stay in Sweden and elsewhere.

Impact

This groundbreaking project encourages key stakeholder collaboration to explore how new environments can expedite the transition to local healthcare. It also entails co-designing and testing new conceptual models of environments to promote health and well-being in post-stroke individuals.

Accessibility

architecture

built environment

good quality and local care

meaningful activities

participatory co-design

person-centered

self-efficacy

stroke rehabilitation

Built environments to support rehabilitation for people with stroke from the hospital to the home (B-Sure) aims to produce conceptual models of built environments to support rehabilitation and recovery after stroke. The project addresses the fundamental transformation of healthcare to provide care and rehabilitation close to the person or at home, i.e., good quality and local healthcare [1–3]. Exploring how the built environment can support these new care policies is important to enhance a person’s potential to live an active life. Surprisingly, little consideration has been given to how the built environment might influence rehabilitation and recovery for people with stroke. Developing new, more supportive environments may be a crucial factor in the success of local healthcare innovation.

Stroke is a highly prevalent and debilitating brain injury that causes disability in adults [4, 5]. In Sweden alone, an estimated 25,000 people are affected annually [6], while globally, stroke affects over 15 million people yearly, resulting in over 5 million deaths [5]. People with stroke often have long-lasting rehabilitation needs, and recovery is known to be complex, with several care providers involved [7–9]. The effects of stroke can be profound and lead to a range of activity and participation limitations [9–11], such as reduced quality of life, social isolation [12–14] and adverse events such as falls [9, 15]. Many patients and families describe the support post-stroke as poor and not patient-centred [16–18] and report poor engagement in their care and treatment decisions [7, 19]. In addition, the role and importance played by the built environment to support rehabilitation outcomes have been largely ignored, especially when patients return home [20, 21].

Rehabilitation aims to restore a person’s functional capacity and societal participation after injury [22]. Effective healthcare services support a person’s independence, participation, and self-directed capacity as people return to the community after a stroke. Recovery after a stroke is best supported when the person and their family or care network feel empowered to take responsibility for their rehabilitation, recovery goals and activities [22, 23].

There is a general need for improvements in rehabilitation environments. Hospital environments, even specialized rehabilitation hospitals, make patients feel bored, and lonely and inhibit independence and control [24–26]. These shared experiences can influence recovery and disempower individuals from leading or engaging in meaningful recovery. Studies show that patient outcomes vary between rehabilitation facilities [27], possibly partially due to differences in the built environment [28, 29]. The design of rehabilitation environments may impact the recovery of people with a stroke, affecting their function in the longer term [30]. For society, this can increase disability expenditure and reduce productivity by hampering people's ability to participate fully [30, 31]. It is worth noting that in most design strategies in rehabilitation, the built environment has not undergone empirical testing or evaluation.

New places for healthcare

Moving care and rehabilitation to peoples’ neighborhoods and in the home is a global development [1]. In Sweden, the reform, "good quality and local healthcare” is described as a new service [3] with more outpatient care and less but highly specialized inpatient care. This requires an empowered, more self-directed patient with control over their care and rehabilitation. The care must be person-centred and needs to switch from traditional one-way expert providers to shared decisions with the patient [32, 33]. Healthcare is far from fulfilling the demands of person-centred care and shared decision-making [34, 35]. The Swedish government argues that the reform has implications for the building sector as they must be involved in sustainable policy discussions to avoid the risk that expensive new inpatient hospital building projects with large climate footprints are realized. At the same time, care and rehabilitation should move closer to patients or into their homes [3].

Developing local healthcare systems will require innovative approaches to living environments and care provision. These approaches must prioritize providing safe and dignified care, healthy working environments for healthcare staff, and support for continued independent living despite disability [36]. To achieve these goals, new models of care that promote health and rehabilitation in alternative settings may be necessary, such as rehabilitation hotels, small recovery homes, and day rehab environments. Virtual care and technology, such as telerehabilitation, may also be critical in creating effective transition pathways between different care environments[37–39]. To achieve this, it will be important to develop simple systems for monitoring progress and requesting appointments with healthcare teams, which can be embedded into the built environment of these care settings.

Our starting point was to ask whether alternative care environments, between hospital and home, might better support people with rehabilitation needs and avoid the current negative effects of hospital-based rehabilitation. While rehabilitation at home may suit some more mildly affected individuals with stroke and their families, it is impossible for others. Our goal is to explore built environment solutions for individuals who require more support or for individuals unable to readily or immediately go home. This direction aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to ensure cities are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable and promote well-being for all [40]. We believe the design and development of built environments can support recovery for people with stroke but also benefit others with similar needs and functional challenges, e.g., multiple sclerosis or Parkinson and those sensitive to obstacles in their environment, including older people.

Despite the growing trend of rehabilitation at home, earlier research has neglected the role of the environment in this transformation, creating a significant knowledge gap [41]. This gap undermines the effectiveness of rehabilitation at home. There is a pressing need for an in-depth exploration of the environmental factors that impact rehabilitation outcomes, including innovative methods and solutions. An integrative mixed methods approach and participatory design can offer a comprehensive understanding of the importance of the environment for rehabilitation at home. By utilizing these approaches, it will be possible to generate robust evidence on the impact of environmental factors on rehabilitation outcomes, inform the development of guidelines and policies for local care and rehabilitation, and enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation at home.

Objectives and research questions

B-Sure, aims to explore the essential factors in a built environment that supports stroke survivors and their families during rehabilitation. The specific research questions include:

What are the most important factors in a built environment that supports people with stroke and their families in their rehabilitation process?
What do innovative built environments for local healthcare and rehabilitation look like?
What are the significant facilitators and obstacles for implementing various built environmental solutions?
How do stakeholders evaluate different built environment solutions regarding their potential benefits, feasibility, and acceptability?

Theoretical framework

We will use several theories and frameworks to conceptualize and explore the interaction between a person and the environment. For example, the Person-Environment-Occupation model [42]and the International Classification of Functions [43]show that the environment comprises many facilitating or hindering factors external to the person. These factors include features of the built environment (e.g., stairs, doors), natural environment (e.g., surfaces outdoors) and objects. The models describe that a good fit between a person’s (P) functional abilities and the demands of environmental factors (E) leads to positive outcomes such as increased independence and overall well-being [44–46]. Hence, to optimize rehabilitation outcomes, it is important to use a person’s environment and be aware of facilitating and hindering factors.

B-Sure is also based on theoretical components of self-efficacy in which the person is seen as capable, with unique experiences, expectations, needs and resources. Self-efficacy is a key construct from Bandura’s theory of social cognition [47]. It is defined as ‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that influence events that affect their lives’. Self-efficacy beliefs can determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave concerning their health. For example, self-efficacy influences motivation and health behaviors by determining people’s goals, how much effort they invest in achieving them, and their resilience when faced with difficulties or failure.

In addition, B-Sure is based on the framework of Living-Lab and co-design [48], i.e., a close collaboration between stakeholders in the design development process. One of the major challenges in planning and architectural practices today is the communication gap between the design team, the various levels of ‘user groups and the wide array of specialized consultants to the process.

Study design

B-Sure has a mixed-method approach [49], including participatory co-design [50, 51]. The project has three phases. In phase I a literature review, concept mapping and interviews will done. In phase II the results from phase I will be used to co-design prototypes of environments to support the rehabilitation process for people with stroke. Finally, phase III will evaluate the prototypes obtained with the co-design process. The process will be iterative, enabling knowledge accumulation and increased common understanding between stakeholders and researchers and contributing to solid knowledge production. The project will adhere to ethical guidelines outlined in the Helsinki Declaration and has ethical approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (number 2023-02337-01and 2022-04231-01).

Phase 1: Identify factors

Phase 1 involves three primary methods of data collection. First, a rapid scoping review [52] will be conducted to synthesise relevant knowledge of essential environmental factors. Secondly, a participatory mixed-methods approach called concept mapping [53] will engage stakeholders in mapping conceptual areas related to the built environment's importance for home rehabilitation. This process will involve collecting qualitative and quantitative data through generated statements, which will then be synthesised and sorted. Finally, interviews with diverse stakeholders will be conducted, covering sociodemographic data and open-ended questions related to identifying crucial factors for promoting the rehabilitation process of people with stroke and their families within the built environment.

Participants

Participants from five stakeholder categories will be recruited for the concept mapping and the interviews: 1) people with stroke, 2) relatives/significant others, 3) healthcare staff, 4) government, including officials responsible for the operation of healthcare environments and stroke rehabilitation in the region and municipalities, 5) industry practitioners, including architects and other designers working within healthcare contexts and home environments. We will strive to recruit 20 individuals from each category for the concept mapping study and 3–5 people from each category for the in-depth interviews.

People who have had a stroke and their relatives will be recruited locally and regionally through advertising on several portals: hospital notice boards, stroke units, outpatient wards, the STROKE National Association's website, and social media. Participants meet the criteria to participate if they are willing to give written informed consent, have a diagnosed stroke, are 18 years and older or care for someone who has had a stroke. We will use a strategic selection procedure with maximum variation to ensure we get a broad description of experiences from the participants regarding age, gender, time since stroke, ethnicity, and geographical location. Staff with clinical experience in rehabilitation after a stroke will be recruited through the research group's contacts, e-mail lists and targeted personal e-mails. We will strive to have a balance between different professionals and regional distribution. We will also recruit representatives from the region, municipality, and real estate owners through our network and collaborators.

Analysis

We will use multidimensional scaling analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis for the concept mapping quantitative data [54] and qualitative content analysis [55] for the interviews and concept mapping. The NVivo software [56]will be used to aid the qualitative analyses and promote validation and transparency of coding.

Phase 2 Co-design prototypes/models of environments

This aspect of the research will be carried out within the framework of a Living Lab [48] using an iterative and learning co-design approach to engaging stakeholders. Building on Phase 1, we will use the well-established Double Diamond method [57] as a guide for the workshop, previously used by the research group [58]. The method includes a three-step process: (1) idea generation, (2) modelling a prototype, and (3) testing and discussing. The research team will facilitate the sessions. Each co-design session is scheduled to continue the work of the previous session. The sessions will be combined with meetings with an advisory committee to guide the progression of the developing prototype. We will use tools and techniques which combine narratives, creativity, and imagination (scenario planning, group discussions, world cafe ́, individual work, collective sessions, and mock-ups) to ensure we reach all participants based on their characteristics and to guarantee that power is shared within the group.

We will be running 2 co-design processes, one in a dense city area and one in a rural area. The process will consist of 5 co-design sessions of 3 hours, which will take place over 6 months.

In this process, we will also use a geographic information system method [59]. Through the analysis, we can visualise optimal places with the highest possible accessibility for the population. To perform the analysis, we will collect network data for transport systems, information about the population, government thresholds and rules. Sensitivity analysis of optimal places will be done where the population's place patterns alternate (according to gender, socioeconomic status, and health status). Furthermore, a rule-based modelling method will be used to work out the optimal places where the identified needs from the literature study and the interviews will be used as criteria and matched with environments in the urban area and in the rural area.

Participants

Participants from five stakeholder categories (not included in phase 1) will be recruited: 1) persons with stroke, 2) relatives/significant others, 3) healthcare staff, 4) government, including officials responsible for the operation of healthcare environments and stroke rehabilitation in the region and municipalities, 5) industry practitioners, including architects and other designers working within healthcare contexts and home environments. We will strive to have at least 2–4 people from each group. Those will be recruited in the same way as in Phase 1.

Data Collection

The data will be obtained from (1) notes taken by the team, (2) prototypes produced by each group, and (3) notes taken after the working sessions via a meeting with the research team to share their impressions.

Analysis

A qualitative content analysis [55] supported by using NVivo software [56]will be used. To enhance the mixed methods approach of CM a qualitative Geographic Information System (GIS) method [59, 60] will be used to spatially analyze and contextualize the CM results. Open access Swedish spatial data (i.e., street network files and geocoded health services) will be triangulated with the CM results using qualitative GIS methods to provide a layered, grounded theory understanding into the meaning and experiences of the stakeholders. A qualitative GIS approach offers a deeper understanding of the context and meaning of the situations that influence person-place interactions and the social factors that relate to perception and interactions.

Phase 3: Evaluation of the prototypes

The third phase will evaluate the different prototypes/models of different environmental solutions according to benefits, feasibility and acceptability. This is a matter of observing future user and stakeholder discussions when confronted with the prototypes, aiming to identify possibilities and challenges with the prototypes.

A combination of think-aloud and focus group interviews will be used. The think-aloud method is frequently used to reveal views from users when they encounter potential solutions [61]. In general, this method aims to capture a systematic process of thinking aloud and analyze this process to gain a deeper understanding of the feasibility of the developed models/prototypes. The sessions will be filmed to allow for transcription of the communications and permit us to associate them with the prototypes.

Participants

A sample of potential users and stakeholders will be recruited. We will base the sample on the five stakeholder groups and recruit 2–3 people from each group.

Analysis

The transcriptions will be coded to identify possibilities and challenges with the prototypes, and content analysis will be used[55].

Patient and public involvement (PPI)

B-Sure study aims to achieve active engagement and empowerment of persons with stroke, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and other stakeholders by developing partnerships that emphasize equal power while acknowledging different roles and responsibilities. The collaborative nature of the research design supports a strong PPI approach. We are actively working in collaboration with stroke organizations and stroke units where the research questions for the study have emerged. This ensures that the research aligns with the needs and perspectives of stroke survivors, their families, and the wider community. During the initial phase, individuals with stroke, family members, and relevant stakeholders, including representatives from stroke organizations and stroke units, will contribute their insights and lived experiences to identify key factors and characteristics of the built environment for rehabilitation. The co-design phase will adopt a participatory approach, actively involving stroke survivors, their families, stakeholders, and representatives from stroke organizations and units as partners in developing prototypes for rehabilitation-supportive environments.

To generate and disseminate knowledge, an iterative Integrated Knowledge Translation approach will be utilized, with participants and researchers functioning as co-creators. Practical implications of co-creators include the terms "knowledge user" and "stakeholder," as defined by the International Association for Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation [61]. The study will evaluate the level of participation using this framework[62].

Progress

The B-Sure is a three-year project which started in January 2022 and is planned to continue until December 2024. As of the submission of this protocol, ethical approval has been obtained (2023-02337-01and 2022-04231-01). Data collection is planned to start in September 2023, and the workshops later the same year. The scoping review is ongoing from January 2023. The concept mapping study is ongoing and will be finalised by October 2023. We expect to finish the data analysis in the second half of 2024.

Principle results and social benefit

We aim to determine how new environments could better support a person’s control over their day, environment, goals, and ultimately control over their recovery and rehabilitation activities. This ‘taking charge’ [22]approach would have the greatest chance of transferring the care closer to the patient's home. By co-designing with multiple stakeholders, we aim to create solutions with the potential for rapid implementation. The project’s outcomes may be scaled up and target other persons with frail health after a hospital stay or older persons in Sweden and elsewhere.

B-Sure will provide knowledge about how buildings and environments in society can support the new care landscape with more care and rehabilitation outside the hospital. The project can thus contribute to improved, strategic and sustainable planning of environments in society. We will examine this issue from the perspective of the needs of people with stroke in their recovery and rehabilitation phases. Stroke is common, and affected individuals have complex health needs. As acute care shortens, rehabilitation and recovery will increasingly happen in the community or at home.

We will use Living-Lab and participatory co-design, where the users (patients, relatives, and professionals) and other key stakeholders such as decisions-makers in health service and municipalities, architects and building planners. will be involved. There is a need for collaboration between users, the building sector, healthcare, regions, and municipalities to develop innovative and sustainable environments that can support the transition to local healthcare. Overall, there is a great need for investments in healthcare environments, which affects the resource space for care. Poor design not supportive of the end users entails significant costs for the patients, the government and healthcare and risks contributing to large climate footprints as the buildings reduce the chance of being sustainable. In addition, we know that traditional planned building projects are often stuck in conventional thinking and risk cementing old care structures and obstacles between care providers while innovative solutions are needed.

It is still uncommon for more developed, innovative collaboration between stakeholders when planning and developing facilities. The Swedish government has drawn attention to this [63]. It intends to map and analyze how these investment projects related to the ongoing development of healthcare at a national level and how facilities can contribute to the national development of healthcare and increased socio-economic efficiency.

We expect that the knowledge produced in B-Sure is critical to fill this gap. The impact and social benefits include:

Collaboration between important stakeholders (patients, healthcare and building sector) to explore how new environments can support the transition to local healthcare.
Co-design and test of new conceptual models of environments that can promote health and well-being for people post-stroke.
Conduct a participatory design process that can create conceptual models where the built environment is included as an important part for rehabilitation.
Stimulate the establishment of a strong national network that can strengthen the development of high-quality rehabilitation environments.

With the B-Sure approach, new knowledge and results will be disseminated locally, nationally, and internationally by our broad stroke rehabilitation and architecture network. We will initiate and participate in knowledge transition activities such as conferences and seminars. Most importantly, we have designed the project to include persons with stroke, relatives, staff, and actors from society, enabling rapid user feedback and the spread of results to a wider public. We will initiate and be involved in knowledge transition activities such as conferences and seminars as contributing to a collaboration between healthcare, region, and municipalities is the goal to generate knowledge and bilateral development.

Strengths and limitations of this study

The study aims to examine the specific requirements of individuals with subacute stroke during their recovery and rehabilitation phases, emphasising the crucial role of built environments in facilitating innovative care approaches beyond the hospital setting.

This project will foster collaboration among key stakeholders, including stroke survivors, healthcare professionals, the building sector, and policymakers. This collaborative effort will explore how the built environment can effectively support the transition towards the new healthcare landscape with local healthcare, thereby driving the development of optimal rehabilitation environments.

The research findings will not only enhance the knowledge base for individuals with stroke, healthcare providers, building sectors, policymakers, and educational institutions but also underscore the critical significance of the built environment.

These findings will pave the way for introducing groundbreaking solutions in healthcare services and communities. Although implementing these solutions may encounter challenges, the research team ensures maximum buy-in by actively involving key representatives from relevant institutions and units as integral research team members. This approach ensures a comprehensive and well-rounded perspective in addressing the complexities of optimising the built environment for stroke rehabilitation.

Ethics and consent to participate

The study has ethical approval from Swedish Ethical Review Authority (number 2023-02337-01and 2022-04231-01). Informed consent will be obtained. A written and oral information on the study purpose and what participation would entail will be given before the informed consent. They will also be informed about confidentiality and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. The design of B-Sure is inherent, iterative and dynamic. This means participants will be able to keep discussions about ethical issues along the way.

Consent for publication

Not applicable (NA)

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study will be made available from the corresponding author on request and anonymized before dissemination.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by FORMAS grant number 2021-01455.

Acknowledgement

Not applicable (NA)

Authors' Contributions

ME, MK, SS, JB, RL, HPR, TS drafted the study design and applied for the funding of B-SURE. ME, MK, SS, JB, RL, HPR, TS planned the detailed study design and study protocol. JS planned the detailed design of the scoping review. ME, MK and LdV drafted the manuscript and revised it based on comments from all authors. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

OECD H. The Next Generation of Health Reforms: Ministerial Statement [Internet]. Paris: OECD. ; 2017.[cited 2023 May 29] Available from OECD Health Ministerial Statement - The next generation of health reforms - OECD.
World Health Organization. Rebuilding for sustainability and resilience: strengthening the integrated delivery of long-term care in the European Region [Internet]. Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization. ; 2022. [cited 2023 May 29] Available from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/353912.
Nergårdh A, Andersson L, Eriksson J, Lundberg M, Nordström K, Lindevall M. God och nära vård–En primärvårdsreform. Stockholm, Sweden: Socialdepartementet[Google Scholar]2018.
Thayabaranathan T, Kim J, Cadilhac DA, Thrift AG, Donnan GA, Howard G, Howard VJ, Rothwell PM, Feigin V, Norrving B. Global stroke statistics 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(9):946–56. 10.1177/17474930221123175. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Feigin VL, Brainin M, Norrving B, Martins S, Sacco RL, Hacke W, Fisher M, Pandian J, Lindsay P. World Stroke Organization (WSO): global stroke fact sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(1):18–29. 10.1177/17474930211065917. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Eriksson M, Åsberg S, Sunnerhagen KS, von Euler M, Collaboration R. Sex differences in stroke care and outcome 2005–2018: observations from the Swedish stroke register. Stroke. 2021;52(10):3233–42. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033893.
Lindblom S, Ytterberg C, Elf M, Flink M. Perceptive dialogue for linking stakeholders and units during care transitions–a qualitative study of people with stroke, significant others and healthcare professionals in Sweden. Int J Integr Care. 2020;20(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.4689.
Bernhardt J, Borschmann KN, Kwakkel G, Burridge JH, Eng JJ, Walker MF, Bird M-L, Cramer SC, Hayward KS, O’Sullivan MJ. Setting the scene for the second stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2019;14(5):450–6. 10.1177/1747493019851287. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Sumathipala K, Radcliffe E, Sadler E, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Identifying the long-term needs of stroke survivors using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Chronic Illn. 2012;8(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395311423848.
Fallahpour M, Tham K, Joghataei MT, Jonsson H. Perceived participation and autonomy: aspects of functioning and contextual factors predicting participation after stroke. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2011 2011/04//;43(5):388–397. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0789.
Arntzen C, Borg T, Hamran T. Long-term recovery trajectory after stroke: an ongoing negotiation between body, participation and self. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(18):1626–34. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.972590.
Yuliana S, Yu E, Rias YA, Atikah N, Chang HJ, Tsai HT. Associations among disability, depression, anxiety, stress, and quality of life between stroke survivors and their family caregivers: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. J Adv Nurs. 2023;79(1):135–48. 10.1111/jan.15465. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Gadidi V, Katz-Leurer M, Carmeli E, Bornstein NM. Long-term outcome poststroke: predictors of activity limitation and participation restriction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(11):1802–8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.014.
Pedersen SG, Anke A, Aadal L, Pallesen H, Moe S, Arntzen C. Experiences of quality of life the first year after stroke in Denmark and Norway. A qualitative analysis. Int J qualitative Stud health well-being. 2019;14(1):1659540. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1659540.
Batchelor FA, Mackintosh SF, Said CM, Hill KD. Falls after stroke. Int J Stroke. 2012;7(6):482–90. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00796.x. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Kulnik ST, Hollinshead L, Jones F. I’m still me–I’m still here!” Understanding the person’s sense of self in the provision of self-management support for people with progressive neurological long-term conditions. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(11):1296–306. 10.1080/09638288.2018.1424953.
Rosewilliam S, Sintler C, Pandyan AD, Skelton J, Roskell CA. Is the practice of goal-setting for patients in acute stroke care patient-centred and what factors influence this? A qualitative study. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(5):508–19. 10.1177/0269215515584167. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Martín-Sanz MB, Salazar-de-la-Guerra RM, Cuenca-Zaldivar JN, Salcedo-Perez-Juana M, Garcia-Bravo C, Palacios-Ceña D. Person-centred care in individuals with stroke: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews. Annals of Medicine. 2022;54(1):2167-2180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2105393
Krishnan S, Hay CC, Pappadis MR, Deutsch A, Reistetter TA. Stroke survivors' perspectives on post–acute rehabilitation options, goals, satisfaction, and transition to home. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2019;43(3):160-167. doi:
10.1097/NPT.0000000000000281
Kylén M, Von Koch L, Pessah-Rasmussen H, Marcheschi E, Ytterberg C, Heylighen A, Elf M. The Importance of the Built Environment in Person-Centred Rehabilitation at Home: Study Protocol. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132409.
Kylén M, Ytterberg C, von Koch L, Elf M. How is the environment integrated into post-stroke rehabilitation? A qualitative study among community‐dwelling persons with stroke who receive home. rehabilitation in Sweden Health & social care in the community. 2022;30(5):1933–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13572.
Fu V, Weatherall M, McPherson K, Taylor W, McRae A, Thomson T, Gommans J, Green G, Harwood M, Ranta A. Taking Charge after Stroke: A randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention. Int J Stroke. 2020;15(9):954–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493020915144.
Boger E, Ellis J, Latter S, Foster C, Kennedy A, Jones F, Fenerty V, Kellar I, Demain S. Self-Management and Self-Management Support Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Mixed Research Synthesis of Stakeholder Views. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0130990–0. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130990.
Kenah K, Bernhardt J, Cumming T, Spratt N, Luker J, Janssen H. Boredom in patients with acquired brain injuries during inpatient rehabilitation: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(22):2713–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1354232.
Anåker A, von Koch L, Heylighen A, Elf M. It’s lonely”: Patients’ experiences of the physical environment at a newly built stroke unit. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2019;12(3):141–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671880669.
Lipson-Smith R, Pflaumer L, Elf M, Blaschke S-M, Davis A, White M, Zeeman H, Bernhardt J. Built environments for inpatient stroke rehabilitation services and care: a systematic literature review. BMJ open. 2021;11(8):e050247. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050247.
Reistetter TA, Kuo Y-F, Karmarkar AM, Eschbach K, Teppala S, Freeman JL, Ottenbacher KJ. Geographic and facility variation in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: multilevel analysis of functional status. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(7):1248–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.02.020.
Anåker A, von Koch L, Sjöstrand C, Bernhardt J, Elf M. A comparative study of patients’ activities and interactions in a stroke unit before and after reconstruction—The significance of the built environment. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0177477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177477.
Shannon MM, Elf M, Churilov L, Olver J, Pert A, Bernhardt J. Can the physical environment itself influence neurological patient activity? Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(10):1177–89. 10.1080/09638288.2017.1423520.
Bernhardt J, Lipson-Smith R, Davis A, White M, Zeeman H, Pitt N, Shannon M, Crotty M, Churilov L, Elf M. Why hospital design matters: A narrative review of built environments research relevant to stroke care. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(4):370–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930211042485.
Lipson-Smith R, Pflaumer L, Elf M, Blaschke SM, Davis A, White M, Zeeman H, Bernhardt J. Built environments for inpatient stroke rehabilitation services and care: a systematic literature review. BMJ open. 2021 Aug 1;11(8):e050247.
Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, Lindseth A, Norberg A, Brink E, Carlsson J, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Johansson I-L, Kjellgren K. Person-centered care—ready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;10(4):248–51. 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Scholl I, Zill JM, Härter M, Dirmaier J. An integrative model of patient-centeredness–a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e107828. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107828.
Kogan AC, Wilber K, Mosqueda L. Person-centered care for older adults with chronic conditions and functional impairment: A systematic literature review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(1):e1–e7. 10.1111/jgs.13873. https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/.
Vardanalys. Act without impact. Assessment of the Swedish Patient. Summary Act 2014–2017. [Internet]. Stockholm: Vardanalys; 2017. [cited 2023 May 29] Available from Act without impact | Vård- och omsorgsanalys (vardanalys.se).
Stiernstedt G. Effektiv vård (Effective care). SOU; 2016. [Internet]. Stockholm: Sveriges riksdag; 2016. [cited 2022 Nov 30] Available from Effektiv vård (Statens offentliga utredningar 2016:2) | Sveriges riksdag (riksdagen.se).
Chen J, Jin W, Zhang X-X, Xu W, Liu X-N, Ren C-C. Telerehabilitation approaches for stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(12):2660–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.014.
Tchero H, Tabue Teguo M, Lannuzel A, Rusch E. Telerehabilitation for stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(10):e10867. 10.2196/10867.
Knepley KD, Mao JZ, Wieczorek P, Okoye FO, Jain AP, Harel NY. Impact of telerehabilitation for stroke-related deficits. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2021;27(3):239–46. 10.1089/tmj.2020.0019.
World Health Organization. World health statistics overview 2019: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals [Internet]. Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization. ; 2019. [cited 2023 Nov 30] Available from World health statistics overview 2019: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals (who.int).
SAFE. "A life saved is a live worth living: unmet needs of stroke survivors in Europe." [Internet]. Brussels: SAFE. ; 2023. [cited 2023 May 29] Available from: https://www.safestroke.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/A-life-saved-is-a-live-worth-living-unmet-needs-of-stroke-survivors-in-Europe_lay-version_final.pdf.
Baptiste S, Hinojosa J, Kramer P, Royeen C. The person-environment-occupation model. Perspectives on human occupation: Theories underlying practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis company; 2017:137–59.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization. ; 2001. [cited 2023 Nov 30] Available from https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/.
Lawton MP, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. 1973.
Farkas M, Kesselring J, Slavin MD. Person-Centered Rehabilitation. Person Centered Medicine: Springer; 2023. pp. 271–87.
Thissen F, Fortuijn JD. The village as a coat’; changes in the person-environment fit for older people in a rural area in The Netherlands. J Rural Stud. 2021;87:431–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.07.001.
Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):143–64. 10.1177/1090198104263660.
Pallot M, Trousse B, Senach B, Scapin D, editors. Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. First European Summer School" Living Labs". August 2010; Inria (ICT Usage Lab), Userlab, EsoceNet, Universcience, Paris, France.
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587.
Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign2008(4):5–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183.
Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health: a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Research & Practice. 2022;32(2). https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3222211.
Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Garritty C. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041.
Kane M, Trochim WM. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication; 2007.
Smith F, Alexandersson P, Bergman B, Vaughn L, Hellström A. Fourteen years of quality improvement education in healthcare: a utilisation-focused evaluation using concept mapping. BMJ open quality. 2019;8(4):e000795. 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000795.
Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N. Thematic analysis: A reflexive approach. SAGE Publications; 2023.
Edhlund B, McDougall A. NVivo 12 essentials: Lulu. com; 2019.
West J, Fusari G, Raby E, Alwani R, Meldaikyte G, Wojdecka A, Matthews E. Developing the double diamond process for implementation. Kurt: Barron, Dierdre and Seemann; 2018.
Sturge J, Meijering L, Jones CA, Garvelink M, Caron D, Nordin S, Elf M, Légaré F. Technology to improve autonomy and inform housing decisions for older adults with memory problems who live at home in Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands: protocol for a multipronged mixed methods study. JMIR Res protocols. 2021;10(1):e19244. https://doi.org/10.2196/19244.
Gao F, Foster M, Liu Y. Disability concentration and access to rehabilitation services: a pilot spatial assessment applying geographic information system analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(20):2468–76. 10.1080/09638288.2018.1468931.
Sturge J, Klaassens M, Lager D, Weitkamp G, Vegter D, Meijering L. Using the concept of activity space to understand the social health of older adults living with memory problems and dementia at home. Soc Sci Med. 2021 Nov;1:288:113208.
Honey M, Aspden T, Brackley K, Amende H, French A, Chan A. Using a" think-aloud" process to aid co-design in development of a medicine information needs assessment tool. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics. [Internet]. 2022 Winter [cited 2023 May 29]; 26(1):7–1. Available from: https://search-ebscohost-com.www.bibproxy.du.se/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=156117188&site=ehost-live.
Barry J, Legacy C. Between virtue and profession: Theorising the rise of professionalised public participation practitioners. Plann Theory. 2023;22(1):85–105. 10.1177/14730952221107148.
Wine O, Spiers J, Burns KK, van Manen M, Vargas AO. A case study unpacking the collaborative research process: Eight essential components. Environ Sci Policy. 2022;131:209–20. 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.006.
Borén T. Mot en handbok för den gestaltade livsmiljön. Stockholm: Film Capital Stockholm; 2020. pp. 222–4.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Built environments to support rehabilitation for people with stroke from the hospital to the home (B-Sure): Protocol for a mixed-method participatory co- design study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND

New places for healthcare

Objectives and research questions

Theoretical framework

METHODS AND DESIGN

Study design

Phase 1: Identify factors

Participants

Analysis

Phase 2 Co-design prototypes/models of environments

Participants

Data Collection

Analysis

Phase 3: Evaluation of the prototypes

Participants

Analysis

Patient and public involvement (PPI)

Progress

DISCUSSION

Principle results and social benefit

Strengths and limitations of this study

Declarations

Ethics and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Availability of data and materials

Competing interest

Funding

Acknowledgement

Authors' Contributions

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1