Advances in technology provide an opportunity to enhance the accuracy of gait and balance assessment, improving the diagnosis and rehabilitation processes for people with acute or chronic health conditions. This study investigated the validity and reliability of a smartphone-based application to measure postural stability and spatiotemporal aspects of gait during four static balance and two gait tasks. Thirty healthy participants (aged 20–69 years) performed the following tasks: (1) standing on a firm surface with eyes opened, (2) standing on a firm surface with eyes closed, (3) standing on a compliant surface with eyes open, (4) standing on a compliant surface with eyes closed, (5) walking in a straight line, and (6) walking in a straight line while turning their head from side to side. During these tasks, the app quantified the participants’ postural stability and spatiotemporal gait parameters. The concurrent validity of the smartphone app with respect to a 3D motion capture system was evaluated using partial Pearson’s correlations (r_p) and limits of the agreement (LoA%). The within-session test–retest reliability over three repeated measures was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM). One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to evaluate responsiveness to differences across tasks and repetitions. Periodicity index, step length, step time, and walking speed during the gait tasks and postural stability outcomes during the static tasks showed moderate-to-excellent validity (0.55 ≤ r_p ≤ 0.98; 3% ≤ LoA% ≤ 12%) and reliability scores (0.52 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.92; 1% ≤ SEM% ≤ 6%) when the repetition effect was removed. Conversely, step variability and asymmetry parameters during both gait tasks generally showed poor validity and reliability except step length asymmetry, which showed moderate reliability (0.53 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.62) in both tasks when the repetition effect was removed. Postural stability and spatiotemporal gait parameters were found responsive (p < 0.05) to differences across tasks and test repetitions. Along with sound clinical judgement, the app can potentially be used in clinical practice to detect gait and balance impairments and track the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. Further evaluation and refinement of the app in people with significant gait and balance deficits is needed.

Background: Rehabilitation is a complex biopsychosocial process in which multidisciplinary professionals work in collaboration with a person and their family, with the shared objective of enhancing the person’s participation in valued life roles. Hence, rehabilitation is integral to the management of numerous health conditions. However, poor descriptions of rehabilitation interventions, including their essential elements and dosage parameters, pose a significant barrier to their replication in clinical practice. This further limits the synthesis of rehabilitation research and the consequent advancement of the field. The original Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide provides a valuable foundation for reporting but is not specific to rehabilitation. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist, an extension of the original TIDieR, was developed to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. Objective: This paper presents the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual. Methods: In accordance with the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network and other relevant guidelines, the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual were developed through a modified Delphi process with individuals with rehabilitation expertise and was guided by an interdisciplinary Steering Committee. Results: The TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present seven original, three adapted and 12 new items to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. New items promote full descriptions of critical aspects of rehabilitation interventions, including the intended study population (Who) and timing of the intervention (When) , the planned intervention dosage (How much, How challenging and Regression/Progression) , person-centred care (Personalisation) and negative undesired effects (Harms) . Explanations and examples of good reporting, provided within the TIDieR-Rehab supplementary manual, provide comprehensive guidance to support users of the checklist. Conclusions: The TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present a systematic approach to the comprehensive reporting of rehabilitation interventions. The checklist is intended to support replication, evaluation and optimisation of rehabilitation interventions through improved reporting quality.

Non-invasive neuromodulatory interventions have the potential to influence neural plasticity and augment motor rehabilitation in people with stroke. Paired associative stimulation (PAS) involves the repeated pairing of single pulses of electrical stimulation to a peripheral nerve and single pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation over the contralateral primary motor cortex. Efficacy of PAS in the lower limb of healthy and stroke populations has not been systematically appraised. Optimal protocols including stimulation parameter settings have yet to be determined. This systematic review (a) examines the efficacy of PAS on lower limb corticomotor excitability in healthy and stroke populations and (b) evaluates the stimulation parameters employed. Five databases were searched for randomized, non-randomized, and pre-post experimental studies evaluating lower limb PAS in healthy and stroke populations. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and assessed methodological quality using a modified Downs and Blacks Tool and the TMS Checklist. Intervention stimulation parameters and TMS measurement details were also extracted and compared. Twelve articles, comprising 24 experiments, met the inclusion criteria. Four articles evaluated PAS in people with stroke. Following a single session of PAS, 21 experiments reported modulation of corticomotor excitability, lasting up to 60 min; however, the research lacked methodological rigor. Intervention stimulation parameters were highly variable across experiments, and whilst these appeared to influence efficacy, variations in the intervention and outcome assessment methods hindered the ability to draw conclusions about optimal parameters. Lower limb PAS research requires further investigation before considering its translation into clinical practice. Eight key recommendations serve as guide for enhancing future research in the field.

Objectives: Rehabilitation is essential for supporting the recovery from, and management of, a range of health conditions. However, interventions are often poorly reported in rehabilitation research, hindering advancement of the field. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to enhance the reporting of interventions, but does not specifically address the complexities and multifaceted nature of rehabilitation interventions. This study aimed to develop an extension of the TIDieR checklist to support better reporting of rehabilitation interventions. Design: A modified Delphi study overseen by a Steering Committee. Setting: Online. Participants: Rehabilitation experts were purposively sampled for diversity in discipline, practice setting, area of expertise and geographical location. Methods: Participants (n=35) provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback on drafts of the TIDieR-Rehab through online surveys. Quantitative data was descriptively analysed by percentage of agreement, while qualitative data was analysed using conventional content analysis. Quantitative and qualitative findings were subsequently triangulated to facilitate iterative refinement of the TIDieR-Rehab. Results: Consensus was achieved after two rounds of the modified Delphi process. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist comprises seven original, three adapted and 12 new reporting items, and is supported by a supplementary manual. Specific enhancements include more detailed descriptions of the study population ( Who ) and timing of the intervention ( When ), the planned intervention dosage ( How much , How challenging and Regression/Progression ), person-centred care ( Personalisation ) and negative undesired effects ( Harms ) which were considered critical for the comprehensive reporting of rehabilitation interventions. Conclusion: The TIDieR-Rehab checklist marks a significant advancement in enhancing and standardising the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. By offering a structured format for detailing complex rehabilitation interventions, the TIDieR-Rehab supports improvements in reporting quality to promote research replication and support the translation of research findings into clinical practice. Future research should validate the TIDieR-Rehab checklist across a variety of intervention types and clinical contexts.

Objective: We propose a novel cue‐based asynchronous brain–computer interface(BCI) for neuromodulation via the pairing of endogenous motor cortical activity with the activation of somatosensory pathways.Methods: The proposed BCI detects the intention to move from single‐trial EEG signals in real time, but, contrary to classic asynchronous‐BCI systems, the detection occurs only during time intervals when the patient is cued to move. This cue‐based asynchronous‐BCI was compared with two traditional BCI modes (asynchronous‐BCI and offline synchronous‐BCI) and a control intervention in chronic stroke patients. The patients performed ankle dorsiflexion movements of the paretic limb in each intervention while their brain signals were recorded. BCI interventions decoded the movement attempt and activated afferent pathways via electrical stimulation. Corticomotor excitability was assessed using motor‐evoked potentials in the tibialis‐anterior muscle induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation before, immediately after, and 30 min after the intervention.Results: The proposed cue‐based asynchronous‐BCI had significantly fewer false positives/min and false positives/true positives (%) as compared to the previously developed asynchronous‐BCI. Linear‐mixed‐models showed that motor‐evoked potential amplitudes increased following all BCI modes immediately after the intervention compared to the control condition (p <0.05). The proposed cue‐based asynchronous‐BCI resulted in the largest relative increase in peak‐to‐peak motor‐evoked potential amplitudes(141% ± 33%) among all interventions and sustained it for 30 min(111% ± 33%).Interpretation: These findings prove the high performance of a newly proposed cue‐based asynchronous‐BCI intervention. In this paradigm, individuals receive precise instructions (cue) to promote engagement, while the timing of brain activity is accurately detected to establish a precise association with the delivery of sensory input for plasticity induction.

Background: Rehabilitation technologies for people with stroke are rapidly evolving. These technologies have the potential to support higher volumes of rehabilitation to improve outcomes for people with stroke. Despite growing evidence of their efficacy, there is a lack of uptake and sustained use in stroke rehabilitation and a call for user-centered design approaches during technology design and development. This study focuses on a novel rehabilitation technology called exciteBCI, a complex neuromodulatory wearable technology in the prototype stage that augments locomotor rehabilitation for people with stroke. The exciteBCI consists of a brain computer interface, a muscle electrical stimulator, and a mobile app. Objective: This study presents the evaluation phase of an iterative user-centered design approach supported by a qualitative descriptive methodology that sought to (1) explore users’ perspectives and experiences of exciteBCI and how well it fits with rehabilitation, and (2) facilitate modifications to exciteBCI design features. Methods: The iterative usability evaluation of exciteBCI was conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 consisted of 3 sprint cycles consisting of single usability sessions with people with stroke (n=4) and physiotherapists (n=4). During their interactions with exciteBCI, participants used a “think-aloud” approach, followed by a semistructured interview. At the end of each sprint cycle, device requirements were gathered and the device was modified in preparation for the next cycle. Phase 2 focused on a “near-live” approach in which 2 people with stroke and 1 physiotherapist participated in a 3-week program of rehabilitation augmented by exciteBCI (n=3). Participants completed a semistructured interview at the end of the program. Data were analyzed from both phases using conventional content analysis. Results: Overall, participants perceived and experienced exciteBCI positively, while providing guidance for iterative changes. Five interrelated themes were identified from the data: (1) “This is rehab” illustrated that participants viewed exciteBCI as having a good fit with rehabilitation practice; (2) “Getting the most out of rehab” highlighted that exciteBCI was perceived as a means to enhance rehabilitation through increased engagement and challenge; (3) “It is a tool not a therapist,” revealed views that the technology could either enhance or disrupt the therapeutic relationship; and (4) “Weighing up the benefits versus the burden” and (5) “Don’t make me look different” emphasized important design considerations related to device set-up, use, and social acceptability. Conclusions: This study offers several important findings that can inform the design and implementation of rehabilitation technologies. These include (1) the design of rehabilitation technology should support the therapeutic relationship between the patient and therapist, (2) social acceptability is a design priority in rehabilitation technology but its importance varies depending on the use context, and (3) there is value in using design research methods that support understanding usability in the context of sustained use.