Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Identifying Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies for Implementation in Research, Education, and Clinical Care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore rehabilitation professionals' experiences and perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) in research, education, and clinical care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with free text and binary responses was completed by rehabilitation professionals. Survey data were analyzed with a deductive approach of directed content analysis using 2 implementation science frameworks: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC). SETTING: Rehabilitation professionals across research, educational, and clinical settings. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eleven rehabilitation professionals-including speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, physicians, psychologists, researchers, and clinic directors-who explored possible uses or applications of the RTSS for clinical care, education, or research (N=111). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of reported CFIR barriers and facilitators, as well as keywords related to CFIR and ERIC constructs. RESULTS: The barriers and facilitating strategies differed according to the end-users' intended use, that is, research, education, or clinical. Overall, the 4 most frequently encountered CFIR barriers were the RTSS's complexity, a lack of available RTSS resources, reduced access to knowledge and information about the RTSS, and limited knowledge and beliefs about the RTSS. The ERIC-CFIR matching tool identified 7 ERIC strategies to address these barriers, which include conducting educational meetings, developing and distributing educational materials, accessing new funding, capturing and sharing local knowledge, identifying and preparing champions, and promoting adaptability. CONCLUSIONS: When attempting to use the RTSS, rehabilitation professionals commonly encountered barriers to understanding and skillfully using the framework. Theory-driven implementation strategies have been identified that have potential for addressing the RTSS's complexity and lack of educational and skill-building resources. Future work can develop the identified implementation strategies and evaluate their effects on RTSS implementation.

Recommendations for Reporting on Rehabilitation Interventions.

ABSTRACT: Clear reporting on rehabilitation treatments is critical for interpreting and replicating study results and for translating treatment research into clinical practice. This article reports the recommendations of a working group on improved reporting on rehabilitation treatments. These recommendations are intended to be combined with the efforts of other working groups, through a consensus process, to arrive at a reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials in physical medicine and rehabilitation (Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist). The work group conducted a scoping review of 156 diverse guidelines for randomized controlled trial reporting, to identify themes that might be usefully applied to the field of rehabilitation. Themes were developed by identifying content that might improve or enhance existing items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Guidelines addressing broad research domains tended to define reporting items generally, from the investigator's perspective of relevance, whereas those addressing more circumscribed domains provided more specific and operationalized items. Rehabilitation is a diverse field, but a clear description of the treatment's separable components, along with distinct treatment theories for each, can improve reporting of relevant information. Over time, expert consensus groups should develop more specific guideline extensions for circumscribed research domains, around coalescing bodies of treatment theory.

Cycling exercise classes may be bad for your (hearing) health.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: 1) Determine feasibility of smartphone-based mobile technology to measure noise exposure; and 2) measure noise exposure in exercise spin classes. STUDY DESIGN: Observational Study. METHODS: The SoundMeter Pro app (Faber Acoustical, Salt Lake City, UT) was installed and calibrated on iPhone and iPod devices in an audiology chamber using an external sound level meter to within 2 dBA of accuracy. Recording devices were placed in the bike cupholders of participants attending spin classes in Boston, Massachusetts (n = 17) and used to measure sound level (A-weighted) and noise dosimetry during exercise according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines. RESULTS: The average length of exposure was 48.9 ± 1.2 (standard error of the mean) minutes per class. Maximum sound recorded among 17 random classes was 116.7 dBA, which was below the NIOSH instantaneous exposure guideline of 140 dBA. An average of 31.6 ± 3.8 minutes were spent at >100 dBA. This exceeds NIOSH recommendations of 15 minutes of exposure or less at 100 dBA per day. Average noise exposure for one 45-minute class was 8.95 ± 1.2 times the recommended noise exposure dose for an 8-hour workday. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data shows that randomly sampled cycling classes may have high noise levels with a potential for noise-induced hearing loss. Mobile dosimetry technology may enable users to self-monitor risk to their hearing and actively engage in noise protection measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 127:1873-1877, 2017.