Engagement strategies to support sub-acute, post-stroke upper limb interventions: A co-design study
Objective To co-design clinician-delivered strategies to support stroke survivor engagement during sub-acute, face-to-face upper limb rehabilitation sessions. Design Four-stage integrated knowledge translation co-design study. Participants Three groups of purposively selected knowledge-users (stroke survivor, clinician and science). Setting Science knowledge-user group included international authors and industry leaders with stroke recovery and/or engagement expertise. Other knowledge-users were Australian clinicians and stroke survivors recruited through research networks. Intervention/methods No intervention was delivered. Study scope was defined through team meetings (Stage 1); knowledge-user perspectives on engagement were collected through workshops and interviews (Stage 2); data were synthesised through descriptive content analysis (Stage 3); engagement strategies were refined through knowledge-user workshops and interviews (Stage 4). Results Study scope was restricted to in-person rehabilitation sessions in the subacute recovery phase (Stage 1). Thirty knowledge-users participated (stroke survivor n = 9, clinician n = 11 and science n = 10) in workshops and interviews (Stage 2). Thirteen engagement themes were identified and synthesised into 10 engagement strategies (Stage 3). Eighteen knowledge-users (stroke survivor n = 5, clinician n = 8 and science n = 5) refined strategy wording, framing and confirmed personalisation as the governing principle across strategies that may be applied through two clinician-adjustable parameters: timing (proactive or reactive) and emphasis (subtle to explicit) (Stage 4). Conclusion Using co-design, we produced a suite of clinician strategies that may support stroke survivor engagement during post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation sessions. Personalisation through timing and emphasis was positioned as the governing principle guiding each engagement strategy. Feasibility for use in clinical practice remains to be tested.
Authors
- Sarah Newton (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1108-1323)
- Ruth Nancy Barker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2546-2581)
- Matthew Wingfield (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8302-1661)
- Amy G. Brodtmann (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9466-2862)
- Natalie Ann Fini (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5474-6404)
- Gavin P. Williams (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2758-7473)
- Kevin English (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4838-7796)
- Kathryn S. Hayward (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5240-3264)
Institutions
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Epworth Hospital (AU)
- Austin Health (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- James Cook University (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Clinical Rehabilitation
- Published
- 2026-10-08
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155261490507
- Primary Topic
- Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00