1 / 18

Effectiveness of a postural care education programme

Effectiveness of a postural care education programme . Chief Investigator (EKHUFT & CCCU) Eve Hutton, eve.hutton@nhs.net Research Associate ( CHSS, UKC) Sarah Hotham Co-Investigator ( CHSS, UKC) Annette King Co- Investigator ( CHSS, UKC ) Kate Hamilton-West. Background.

colman
Télécharger la présentation

Effectiveness of a postural care education programme

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effectiveness of a postural care education programme Chief Investigator (EKHUFT & CCCU) Eve Hutton, eve.hutton@nhs.net Research Associate (CHSS, UKC) Sarah Hotham Co-Investigator (CHSS, UKC) Annette King Co- Investigator (CHSS, UKC ) Kate Hamilton-West

  2. Background • Occupational Therapists & Physiotherapists support children at school. • More children are educated in mainstream schools. • Parents & teachers lack knowledge & confidence. • This can affect a child’s function & well being (Hutton & Coxon 2011).

  3. The A-Z of postural care

  4. Aim • The aim of the study is to determine whether the intervention ( a postural care education programme) improves parents’ and teachers’ knowledge and confidence in providing postural care

  5. Methods • Intervention targeted at two groups: Inclusion criteria : care for a child who attends a mainstream primary school. • Parents • Teachers and Teaching Assistants • Sample size: minimum 66 (based on G*Power calculation). • Aimed to recruit 25-30 through each therapy team.

  6. Methods: Recruitment • 3 x Therapy Team • Therapists identify children • Therapists identify schools • Admin based in therapy team invites parents • Research team invites teaching staff

  7. Intervention • Two key aims: • To improve knowledge and understanding of postural care • To improve confidence in providing postural care • Facilitated by physiotherapists and occupational therapists in each locality. • Intervention take place over 6-weeks consists of 3 main parts: • Postural Care Training 2-hour workshop • One-to-one visit • Telephone support

  8. Evaluation of Intervention • Use validated outcome measure. • Baseline measurements. Prior to start of training workshop participants complete postural care questionnaire (Time 1). • End of 6-week intervention complete postural care questionnaire again (Time 2). • Changes in knowledge, understanding and confidence? • ANOVAs comparing Time 1 vs. Time 2. • Focus groups and child interviews to gather qualitative feedback.

  9. Outcome Measure • Majority of questions scored on a 4 point-Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree). • Higher scores = more knowledge /understanding & confidence. • “ I understand how postural care may affects a child’s physical health” • “I feel confident about providing postural care” • Higher scores =more concerns. • “ I am concerned I might be doing more harm than good”

  10. Timeline: May – August 2013

  11. Results (Time 1): N = 71

  12. Results: Reliability • Cronbach’s Alpha : Above .70 indicates satisfactory reliability • Knowledge and Understanding (21 items) : α = .87 • Confidence (23 items) : α = .85 • Concerns (7 items) : α = .84

  13. Results: Correlations • Preliminary data from Time 1 outcome measure. • Years of experience related to higher levels of confidence, lower levels of concerns. • Positive correlation between levels of knowledge and confidence. • Higher levels of knowledge = higher levels of confidence. • Negative correlation between levels of concerns, knowledge and confidence. • Lower levels of concerns = higher levels of knowledge and confidence.

  14. Results: Area Breakdown

  15. Results: Parents vs. Teaching Staff *p<.05

  16. Cost analysis and qualitative study • NHS costs of the intervention • Via process logs of activities • Feedback from participants • Group discussion and interviews with workshop participants • Group discussion with therapist about their experience • Interviews with children who have experience of postural care • Using visual communication approach (talking mats)

  17. Final Thoughts Impact: • On-going partnership between the researchers and service users throughout. • A parent is a co-applicant & other parents & teachers have been involved in the design & development of the intervention. •  Linking parents and teachers – sharing experiences. • Highlights importance of postural care for the child and the need for a ‘whole school approach’. Implications: • Promote knowledge sharing & closer working between parents, therapists & teachers.

  18. Thanks This presentation presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0110-21045). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

More Related