Learning in the acute and post-acute neurorehabilitation setting
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Learning and Being a Learner in the Acute and Post-acute Neurorehabilitation Setting: A Qualitative Study
IRAS ID
235863
Contact name
Sally Davenport
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
NA, NA
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 5 months, 30 days
Research summary
People who have had an injury to the brain, such as stroke, often have difficulty with movement. Through rehabilitation they relearn ways of doing everyday activities such as walking and reaching. This relearning often takes a lot of practice both for the person and also their carers, and many people do not manage to do the amount that is recommended to them. The impact of this is both to patient outcomes and to the use of healthcare resources. The reasons for this limited self-practice are not fully clear but it may in part be because patients and their carers are not adequately prepared for the learning and that information-giving and guidance may not be delivered and communicated to them in the most meaningful way. General principles of adult learning such as adults wanting responsibility and having self-motivation to learn are thought to apply in healthcare. Limited research has been done, however, to explore these assumptions and to understand what it is like to learn and be a learner when the need for this is imposed by ill health as compared to learning from choice. Using both periods of observation of patients, carers and staff in an NHS rehabilitation unit and doing a series of interviews with patients and their carers, this research aims to better understand what, in the short to medium term post brain injury, patients and their carers perceive that they learn, how and where their learning occurs, and what factors shape it. By better understanding patient learning at a point of sudden life change imposed by ill health, the aim will be for patient and carer needs to be better met so that practice of exercise is more successful and thereby outcomes improved and healthcare resources better spent.
REC name
London - Surrey Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
18/LO/1086
Date of REC Opinion
21 Jun 2018
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion