Background: Lower body positive pressure (LBPP) may provide a novel intervention for gait training in neurological conditions. Nonetheless, studies investigating the safety and feasibility of LBPP in patients with stroke are insufficient. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBPP as a rehabilitation intervention for individuals with chronic stroke. Methods: Individuals with chronic stroke were recruited from the community to participate in LBPP gait training three times a week for six weeks. The LBPP’s safety and feasibility were documented throughout the study and at the end of six weeks. Safety and feasibility referred to the incidence of adverse events, complications, the participant and therapist satisfaction questionnaire, and the device limitation including but not limited to technical issues and physical constraints. In addition, blood pressure, pulse rate, and oxygen saturation were taken pre- and post-session. Dependent t-tests were used to analyze the difference between assessments. A Wilcoxon test was used to assess the ordinal data (Trial registration number NCT04767334). Results: Nine individuals (one female, eight males) aged 57 ± 15.4 years were enrolled. All participants completed the intervention without adverse events. All participants reported positive scores from 4 (very satisfying) to 5 (extremely satisfying) in the safety and feasibility questionnaire. No significant differences were observed in blood pressure and oxygen saturation during the intervention sessions. However, significant increases were observed in heart rate from 82.6 ± 9.1 beats/min (pre-session) to 88.1 ± 6.8 beats/min (post-session) (p = 0.027). Conclusions: LBPP is a safe and feasible rehabilitation tool to use with individuals with chronic stroke.

Background/Objectives: Bedside manners are an important part of patient-centered physical therapy care, yet little is known about how Saudi physical therapists understand and apply them in practice. This study examined therapists’ perceptions of bedside manners and ethics, and explored differences related to gender and work setting. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted among 147 licensed Saudi physical therapists. Quantitative data were collected using a 28-item questionnaire, and qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 22 participants. Survey responses were summarized using frequencies and percentages, and differences by gender and work setting were reported. Interview data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis. Results: Most participants were female (66.7%) and aged 20–30 years (70.7%). Overall, therapists reported very high agreement with bedside-manner principles across most items. Descriptive patterns by gender and work setting in some perceptions (e.g., patient privacy, therapist presence, and attention to minor cases) were noted. Qualitative analysis identified seven themes: building trust, perceived positive contribution to care, body language, differing views on empathy, therapist presence, patient equity, and seeking help from colleagues. Conclusions: Saudi physical therapists strongly supported core bedside manner behaviors, especially communication, privacy, reassurance, and fair treatment of patients. These findings may inform efforts to incorporate bedside manners into physical therapy education and professional development in support of ethical, patient-centered practice.

Background/Objectives: Bedside manners are central to patient-centered rehabilitation, yet patient perspectives on physical therapy in Saudi Arabia remain underexplored. This study examined patients’ perceptions of physical therapists’ bedside manners and explored variation according to patient and therapist characteristics. Methods: A cross-sectional convergent mixed-methods study included 510 patients who had completed physical therapy within the previous year. Participants completed a 25-item questionnaire comprising six sociodemographic and 19 bedside-manner items; 25 participants also completed semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and selected Likert-scale items with sufficient response variability were examined using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests with Bonferroni correction and Cramér’s V. Interview data underwent thematic analysis. Results: Responses to the nine yes/no items were predominantly affirmative (88.6–98.6%). The first item assessed familiarity with the term “bedside manners,” whereas the remaining eight items assessed patients’ reported experiences of therapist behaviors. Agreement exceeded 90% for six of the ten Likert-scale items, while responses regarding empathy, therapist presence, and attention according to case complexity were more variable. After correction for multiple comparisons, preferences regarding therapist presence differed by therapist sex and patient–therapist sex match (both p < 0.001; Cramér’s V = 0.17). The qualitative analysis identified seven themes: therapeutic relationship, treatment adherence, nonverbal communication, emotional support, therapist supervision, initial impression, and professional consultation. Conclusions: Patients in this sample strongly valued communication, consent, privacy, reassurance, and respectful interpersonal behavior, while preferences regarding empathy and therapist supervision were more individualized. Interpretation is limited by the cross-sectional convenience sample, restriction to treatment completers, and the small magnitude of the observed associations.