Data from: Patient and staff perceptions of intradialytic exercise before and after implementation: a qualitative study
Data files
Apr 10, 2016 version files 1.85 MB
-
P1 interview.doc
81.92 KB
-
P10 interview .wps.doc
83.46 KB
-
P11 interview.wps.doc
68.61 KB
-
P2 interview.docx
32.52 KB
-
P3 interview.docx
17.60 KB
-
P4 interview.docx
19.52 KB
-
P5 Interview.docx
39.84 KB
-
P6 interview.docx
17.72 KB
-
P7 interview.docx
15.25 KB
-
P8 Interview.docx
34.36 KB
-
P9 Interview.doc
118.27 KB
-
PF2.doc
148.99 KB
-
PFG1.doc
146.94 KB
-
PFG3.doc
183.81 KB
-
PFG4.doc
148.48 KB
-
pre ex interview p2.docx
25.78 KB
-
pre exercise interview patient 1.docx
21.35 KB
-
S1 Interview.wps.doc
61.44 KB
-
S2 interview .wps.doc
64.51 KB
-
S3 interview.wps.doc
46.59 KB
-
S4 interview.doc
65.54 KB
-
s5 interview.doc
64 KB
-
S6interview.doc
47.62 KB
-
S7 interview.doc
62.46 KB
-
S8interview.wps.doc
77.82 KB
-
sFG1.wps.doc
68.61 KB
-
sFG2.wps.doc
88.06 KB
Abstract
Introduction: Despite guidance and evidence for the beneficial effects of intradialytic exercise (IDE), such programmes are rarely adopted within practice and little is known about how they may best be sustained. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to guide the understanding of the barriers and facilitators to initial and ongoing IDE participation and to understand how these are influential at each stage. Materials and Methods: Focus groups explored patient (n=24) and staff (n=9) perceptions of IDE prior to the introduction of a programme and, six months later, face to face semi-structured interviews captured exercising patients (n=11) and staffs’ (n=8) actual experiences. Data were collected at private and NHS haemodialysis units within the UK. All data were audio-recorded, translated where necessary, transcribed verbatim and subject to framework analysis. Results: IDE initiation can be facilitated by addressing the pre-existing beliefs about IDE through the influence of peers (for patients) and training (for staff). Participation was sustained through the observation of positive outcomes and through social influences such as teamwork and collaboration. Despite this, environment and resource limitations remained the greatest barrier perceived by both groups. Conclusions: Novel methods of staff training and patient education should enhance engagement. Programmes that clearly highlight the benefits of IDE should be more successful in the longer term. The barrier of staff workload needs to be addressed through specific guidance that includes recommendations on staffing levels, roles, training and skill mix.