This systematic review’s purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of lower-limb and foot somatosensory stimulation to improve balance and gait post-stroke. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Included studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English with ethical approval statement. Studies of conditions other than stroke, functional electrical stimulation, and interventions eliciting muscle contraction, were excluded. AgeLine, AMED, CINAHL PLUS, EMBASE, EMCARE MEDLINE, PEDro, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2022. Two authors independently screened results, extracted data and assessed study quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool; 16 RCTs (n = 638) were included. Four studies showed a medium or large standardized between-group effect size (Cohen’s d) in favor of somatosensory stimulation, in relation to: customized insoles (d = 0.527), taping (d = 0.687), and electrical stimulation (two studies: d = 0.690 and d = 1.984). Although limited by study quality and heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, with only one study’s results statistically significant, several interventions showed potential for benefit, exceeding the minimally important difference for gait speed. Further research with larger trials is required. This unfunded systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022321199).

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has increased steadily over the last two decades and is now both expected and appropriately resourced by many funding bodies, including the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). However, PPI in research occurs in many different capacities and numerous frameworks exist for reporting or appraising patient involvement activities. The aim of this article is to describe processes involving PPI contributions to an NIHR-funded mixed-methods feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot). Details of PPI advisors’ input, from initial identification and prioritisation of research ideas, to research delivery and dissemination, are discussed.Methods: Extensive PPI for MoTaStim-Foot is reported, with consideration of Research Design Service (RDS) advice for PPI for research, involving identifying and prioritising: design; grant proposal development; undertaking/managing research; analysing and interpreting; dissemination; implementation; monitoring and evaluation. Two PPI workshops were undertaken; success in meeting UK standards for public involvement was audited against specific success criteria by two researchers, with discussion and consideration regarding how well our PPI achieved inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. How PPI can be improved for future trials was also considered. Although the advantages of PPI for researchers were considered, the benefits for PPI advisors were also analysed.Results: UK standards for public involvement were achieved, along with seven relevant research processes suggested by the RDS. PPI advisor contributions: informed study design; contributed to successful funding; enhanced trial delivery by informing participant information sheets and daily diaries; added value through undertaking note-taker roles in focus groups and helping to analyse focus group transcripts; and assisted in dissemination. However, benefits were mutual with PPI advisors reporting feeling valued and respected, a sense of pride with renewed confidence and purpose in life.Conclusions: Importance and value of PPI, to researchers and patient advisors, have been highlighted, reinforcing the benefits of working in partnership with PPI advisors.Trial registrationISRCTN 13676183; Central Portfolio Management System ID 30449. Registered 02/01/2015,https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13676183.

Background: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities. Methods: A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (‘Inclusive opportunities’, ‘Working together’, ‘Support and learning’, ‘Communications’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Governance’) was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework (‘Insights’) was used to evaluate quality as one of: ‘Welcoming’, ‘Listening’, ‘Learning’ and ‘Leading’. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors. Results: Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. Conclusions: This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.

Background: Somatosensory stimulation of the lower extremity could improve motor recovery and walking post-stroke. This pilot study investigated the feasibility of a subsequent randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether task-specific gait training is more effective following either (a) intensive hands-on somatosensory stimulation or (b) wearing textured insoles.Objectives: Determine recruitment and attrition rates, adherence to intervention, acceptability and viability of interventions and outcome measures, and estimate variance of outcome data to inform sample size for a subsequent RCT.Methods: Design: randomized, single-blinded, mixed-methods pilot study.Setting: In-patient rehabilitation ward and community.Participants:n = 34, 18+years, 42–112 days following anterior or posterior circulation stroke, able to follow simple commands, able to walk independently pre-stroke, and providing informed consent.Intervention: Twenty 30-min sessions of task-specific gait training (TSGT) (delivered over 6 weeks) in addition to either: (a) 30–60 min mobilization and tactile stimulation (MTS); or (b) unlimited textured insole (TI) wearing.Outcomes: Ankle range of movement (electrogoniometer), touch-pressure sensory thresholds (Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments), motor impairment (Lower Extremity Motricity Index), walking ability and speed (Functional Ambulation Category, 5-m walk test, pressure insoles) and function (modified Rivermead Mobility Index), measured before randomization, post-intervention, and 1-month thereafter (follow-up). Adherence to allocated intervention and actual dose delivered (fidelity) were documented in case report forms and daily diaries. Focus groups further explored acceptability of interventions and study experience.Analysis: Recruitment, attrition, and dose adherence rates were calculated as percentages of possible totals. Thematic analysis of daily diaries and focus group data was undertaken. Standard deviations of outcome measures were calculated and used to inform a sample size calculation.Results: Recruitment, attrition, and adherence rates were 48.57, 5.88, and 96.88%, respectively. Focus groups, daily-diaries and case report forms indicated acceptability of interventions and outcome measures to participants. The 5-m walk was selected as primary outcome measure for a future trial [mean (SD) at end of intervention: 16.86 (11.24) MTS group and 21.56 (13.57) TI group]; sample size calculation indicated 60 participants are required per group.Conclusion: Recruitment, attrition and adherence rates and acceptability of interventions and outcomes justify a subsequent powered RCT of MTS+TSGT compared with TI+TSGT.

Research active organisations achieve better healthcare outcomes. The Research ABC Project (Allied Health Professions (AHPs) Building Research Capacity Across the Black Country), funded from 1/8/23–31/3/24 by a Clinical Research Network West Midlands Improvement and Innovation grant, was commissioned to facilitate the Black Country Integrated Care System to address the four domains of Health Education England’s AHPs’ Research and Innovation Strategy for England (capacity, capability, context and culture). This evaluation aimed to understand research-readiness, initiate research skills development through bespoke training, increase research capacity of the local AHP Community and inform the Integrated Care Board of future requirements. AHPs in six Black Country NHS Trusts, West Midlands, United Kingdom (n = 2396) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey via Microsoft forms (October–November 2023). Baseline levels of engagement in research activities, existing research skills, barriers to engagement, and training needs were explored. Descriptive analysis and thematic analysis for free text answers were undertaken. Project outputs included bespoke training, shared digital space, and Research Champions identification and support; success of the project was evaluated. There were 440 eligible responses from 11 of 14 professions (response rate 18.4%) with over half qualified > 10 years. Qualifications ranged from diploma (5.9%), degree/BSc (40.2%), postgraduate credits (27.0%), and MSc (24.6%) to PhD (0.9%). Research outputs were limited: 85.9% had no publications, 83.8% no abstract submissions; only 6.8% had Chief/Principal Investigator experience. However, audit (83.6%), service evaluation (75.9%), and quality improvement (78.9%) activities were common. Main barriers to research engagement were work pressures (42%), commitments outside work (22%), deemed not applicable (14%), not supported (8%), and not interested (7%). Training needs and Research Champions (n = 93) were identified. Training sessions (n = 23) were attended by 169 AHPs and well-evaluated. The digital space facilitated networking (285 AHPs signed-up). The Research ABC project identified baseline research levels for AHPs across the Black Country, and delivered training, with potential to develop research capability and capacity. Research Champions enable research, creating a supportive environment (context) and changing culture, addressing the AHP Research Strategy vision. The Research ABC model and GO-RESEARCH recommendations (developed from the project findings) could be adopted more widely to help drive AHP research forward; appropriate infrastructure and raising the importance of research is essential to achieve this in the future.

Background/Aims: Intensive proprioceptive stimulation applied to the paretic hand post-stroke, using a complex hands-on intervention known as mobilisation and tactile stimulation, has reduced motor impairment and improved hand function in sub-acute and chronic stroke. While, anecdotally, mobilisation and tactile stimulation is also applied to the paretic foot to prepare it for standing, its use in stroke rehabilitation and effects on standing and balance have not been evaluated. Therefore, expert clinicians' experiences, opinions and perceptions of using mobilisation and tactile stimulation in routine clinical practice were explored to inform a subsequent feasibility study of mobilisation and tactile stimulation for the paretic foot post-stroke. Methods: Following ethical approval, focus groups were undertaken: using purposive sampling, physiotherapists and occupational therapists with >12 months experience of stroke rehabilitation were recruited from a regional special interest group. A pilot study (n=4) and main study (n=7) explored content and application of hands-on therapy for the paretic foot, and the perceived impact of sensory loss on lower limb function. Data were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: All 11 therapists had previous experience of using mobilisation and tactile stimulation for the foot post-stroke. Three main themes were identified: (1) therapeutic intervention (sub-themes: therapy content, sensation, adjuncts, the foot as an active base of support and preparation for function); (2) 24-hour care; and (3) analysis (sub-themes: outcome measures, response to treatment). The most common adjuncts to mobilisation and tactile stimulation were orthotics and task-specific training. The importance of mobilisation and tactile stimulation in restoring foot alignment, sensory feedback and progression of the patient towards weight bearing and ambulation in the clinical setting was highlighted. Conclusions: Mobilisation and tactile stimulation is a complex intervention used in stroke rehabilitation to enhance weight bearing and ambulation post stroke. Further research into its effects on the foot and lower limb is warranted in order to evaluate it and determine its evidence base for inclusion in routine clinical practice. Alternative methods of applying proprioceptive stimulation should also be considered, for example use of textured insoles, and relative effectiveness of these explored in clinical trials.