Using mixed methods to evaluate efficacy and user expectations of a virtual reality–based training system for upper-limb recovery in patients after stroke: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundIn recent years, virtual reality has been introduced to neurorehabilitation, in particular with the intention of improving upper-limb training options and facilitating motor function recovery.Methods/DesignThe proposed study incorporates a quantitative part and a qualitative part, termed a mixed-methods approach: (1) a quantitative investigation of the efficacy of virtual reality training compared to conventional therapy in upper-limb motor function are investigated, (2a) a qualitative investigation of patients’ experiences and expectations of virtual reality training and (2b) a qualitative investigation of therapists’ experiences using the virtual reality training system in the therapy setting. At three participating clinics, 60 patients at least 6 months after stroke onset will be randomly allocated to an experimental virtual reality group (EG) or to a control group that will receive conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy (16 sessions, 45 minutes each, over the course of 4 weeks). Using custom data gloves, patients’ finger and arm movements will be displayed in real time on a monitor, and they will move and manipulate objects in various virtual environments. A blinded assessor will test patients’ motor and cognitive performance twice before, once during, and twice after the 4-week intervention. The primary outcome measure is the Box and Block Test. Secondary outcome measures are the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessments (hand, arm and shoulder pain subscales), the Chedoke-McMaster Arm and Hand Activity Inventory, the Line Bisection Test, the Stroke Impact Scale, the MiniMentalState Examination and the Extended Barthel Index. Semistructured face-to-face interviews will be conducted with patients in the EG after intervention finalization with a focus on the patients’ expectations and experiences regarding the virtual reality training. Therapists’ perspectives on virtual reality training will be reviewed in three focus groups comprising four to six occupational therapists and physiotherapists.DiscussionThe interviews will help to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena under investigation to provide sound recommendations for the implementation of the virtual reality training system for routine use in neurorehabilitation complementing the quantitative clinical assessments.Trial registrationCliniclatrials.gov Identifier: NCT01774669 (15 January 2013)

[1]  N. Britten Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research , 1995 .

[2]  Paula Lusardi,et al.  Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative , 1995 .

[3]  Agnes Mühlmeyer-Mentzel The Logical Structure of Data in ATLAS.ti and its Advantage for Grounded Theory Studies , 2011 .

[4]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Virtual Reality for Stroke Rehabilitation , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. , 1985, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[6]  Paul W. Stratford,et al.  Validation of Three Shortened Versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory , 2006 .

[7]  J. Janša,et al.  An Evaluation of the Extended Barthel Index with Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients , 2004, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  D. Labarthe,et al.  Prevalence of stroke--United States, 2005. , 2007, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[9]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[11]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[12]  David L Streiner,et al.  Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  Kim Brock,et al.  Outcomes of the Bobath concept on upper limb recovery following stroke , 2004, Clinical rehabilitation.

[14]  Zhang Tong,et al.  Virtual Reality in Neurorehabilitation , 2016 .

[15]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Treatment Interventions for the Paretic Upper Limb of Stroke Survivors: A Critical Review , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[17]  Eric Rogers,et al.  Stroke participants' perceptions of robotic and electrical stimulation therapy: a new approach , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[18]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Gowland Ca,et al.  Staging motor impairment after stroke. , 1990 .

[20]  Fiona Wiltshier Researching With NVivo , 2011 .

[21]  C. Bias The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011 .

[22]  Patrice L. Weiss,et al.  Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation: Virtual reality in neurorehabilitation , 2006 .

[23]  K. Eng,et al.  Improving dexterity in children with cerebral palsy Preliminary results of a randomized trial evaluating a glove based VR-system , 2011 .

[24]  S. Kvale,et al.  InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing , 1996 .

[25]  Meg E Morris,et al.  Assessment of unilateral neglect. , 2003, Physical therapy.

[26]  L. Finlay,et al.  Phenomenology for Therapists: Researching the Lived World , 2011 .

[27]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  J. Denollet,et al.  Personality and Vulnerability to Depression in Stroke Patients: A 1-Year Prospective Follow-Up Study , 2002, Stroke.

[29]  Dallas Johnson,et al.  Conceptualization of a New Stroke-Specific Outcome Measure: The Stroke Impact Scale , 2001, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[30]  Yen-ho Wang,et al.  Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in Stroke Patients , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[31]  Paul F. M. J. Verschure,et al.  Interactive visuo-motor therapy system for stroke rehabilitation , 2007, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[32]  H. Starks,et al.  Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory , 2007, Qualitative health research.

[33]  Corina Schuster,et al.  Objectively-assessed outcome measures: a translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure applied to the Chedoke McMaster Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[34]  J. Wyatt,et al.  Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  S. Embretson,et al.  The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. , 1999, Stroke.

[36]  Sarah F Tyson,et al.  Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: a systematic review. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[37]  Marsha P. Johnson Statistical Methods for Health Care Research , 1996 .

[38]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[39]  P. Stratford,et al.  Development of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory: Theoretical Constructs, Item Generation, and Selection , 2004, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[40]  M. Hallett,et al.  Virtual Reality–Induced Cortical Reorganization and Associated Locomotor Recovery in Chronic Stroke: An Experimenter-Blind Randomized Study , 2005, Stroke.

[41]  Gail D. Wegner Statistical Methods for Health Care Research , 1995 .

[42]  Hui Chen,et al.  Test-Retest Reproducibility and Smallest Real Difference of 5 Hand Function Tests in Patients With Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[43]  H. J. Streubert,et al.  Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative , 1995 .

[44]  R. Parry Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment — Development, Validation and Administration Manual , 1996 .

[45]  C. Gowland,et al.  Staging Motor Impairment After Stroke , 1990, Stroke.