Identifying priorities for balance interventions through a participatory co-design approach with end-users

Abstract

Background: Most individuals living with spinal cord injuries/diseases (SCI/D) or stroke experience at least one fall each year; hence, the development of interventions and technologies that target balance control is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify and explore the priorities for balance-focused interventions and technologies from the perspectives of end-users to assist with the design of an intervention that combines functional electrical stimulation (FES) with visual feedback training for standing balance. Methods: Two individuals with SCI/D, one individual with stroke, two physical therapists (PT) and one hospital administrator were recruited. Participants attended three focus group meetings that followed a participatory co-design approach. A semi-structured interview guide, developed from the FAME (Feasibility, Appropriateness, Meaningfulness, Effectiveness, Economic Evidence) framework, was used to lead the discussion, querying participants’ experiences with balance deficits and interventions, and FES. Meetings were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. An iterative and reflexive inductive thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts by three researchers. Results: Four themes were identified: (1) Balance is meaningful for daily life and rehabilitation. Participants acknowledged various factors influencing balance control and how balance deficits interfered with participation in activities. End-users stressed the importance of continuing to work on one’s balance after discharge from hospital-based rehabilitation. (2) Desired characteristics of balance interventions. Participants explained that balance interventions should be tailored to an individual’s unique needs and goals, relevant to their lives, balance their safety and risk, and be engaging. (3) Prior experiences with FES to inform future therapeutic use. Participants with stroke or SCI/D described initial apprehension with FES, but experienced numerous benefits that motivated them to continue with FES. Challenges with FES were mentioned, including wires, cost, and time of set up. (4) Potential role of FES in balance interventions. Participants felt that FES would complement balance interventions; however, they had not experienced this combination of therapies previously. Conclusions: End-users described how their experiences with balance deficits, rehabilitation, and FES informed their priorities for balance interventions. The findings inform the design and implementation of future balance interventions for individuals with SCI/D or stroke, including an intervention involving FES and visual feedback training.