What is the feasibility and patient acceptability of a digital system for arm and hand rehabilitation after stroke? A mixed-methods, single-arm feasibility study of the 'OnTrack' intervention for hospital and home use.

OBJECTIVES: Arm weakness is common after stroke; repetitive activity is critical for recovery but people struggle with knowing what to do, volume, and monitoring progress. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of OnTrack, a digital intervention supporting arm and hand rehabilitation in acute and home settings. DESIGN: A mixed-method, single-arm study evaluating the feasibility of OnTrack for hospital and home use. An independent process evaluation assessed the intervention's fidelity, dose and reach. Amendments to the protocol were necessary after COVID-19. SETTING: Acute stroke services and home settings in North West London. PARTICIPANTS: 12 adults with a stroke diagnosis <6 months previously (first or recurrent) requiring arm rehabilitation in hospital and/or home. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks using the OnTrack system comprising arm tracking and coaching support for self-management. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, retention and completion rates; compliance and adherence to the intervention; reasons for study decline/withdrawal.Intervention fidelity and acceptability, evaluated through an independent process evaluation.Patient measures including activity baseline, healthcare activation, arm function and impairment collected at baseline, week 7 and week 14 of participation to assess suitability for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). RESULTS: 181 individuals screened, 37 met eligibility criteria, 24 recruited (65%); of these, 15 (63%) were recruited before COVID-19, and 9 (37%) during. 12 completed the intervention (50%). Despite COVID-19 disruptions, recruitment, retention and completion were in line with prestudy expectations and acceptable for a definitive trial. Participants felt the study requirements were acceptable and the intervention usable. Fidelity of delivery was acceptable according to predetermined fidelity markers. Outcome measures collected helped determine sample size estimates and primary outcomes for an RCT. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was found to be usable and acceptable by participants; study feasibility objectives were met and demonstrated that a definitive RCT would be viable and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03944486.

Whose voices should shape global health education? Curriculum codesign and codelivery by people with direct expertise and lived experience.

There are contrasting opinions of what global health (GH) curricula should contain and limited discussion on whose voices should shape it. In GH education, those with first-hand expertise of living and working in the contexts discussed in GH classrooms are often absent when designing curricula. To address this, we developed a new model of curriculum codesign called Virtual Roundtable for Collaborative Education Design (ViRCoED). This paper describes the rationale and outputs of the ViRCoED approach in designing a new section of the Global Health Bachelor of Science (BSc) curriculum at Imperial College London, with a focus on healthcare in the Syrian conflict. The team, importantly, involved partners with lived and/or professional experience of the conflict as well as alumni of the course and educators in all stages of design and delivery through to marking and project evaluation. The project experimented with disrupting power dynamics and extending ownership of the curriculum beyond traditional faculty by codesigning and codelivering module contents together with colleagues with direct expertise and experience of the Syrian context. An authentic approach was applied to assessment design using real-time syndromic healthcare data from the Aleppo and Idlib Governorates. We discuss the challenges involved in our collaborative partnership and describe how it may have enhanced the validity of our curriculum with students engaging in a richer representation of key health issues in the conflict. We observed an enhanced self-reflexivity in the students' approach to quantitative data and its complex interpretation. The dialogic nature of this collaborative design was also a formative process for partners and an opportunity for GH educators to reflect on their own positionality. The project aims to challenge current standards and structures in GH curriculum development and gesture towards a GH education sector eventually led by those with lived experience and expertise to significantly enhance the validity of GH education.