» Articles » PMID: 38076288

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Codesigned Health Care Transition Intervention for Young People With Spinal Cord Injuries

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Due in part to medical complications, adults with a pediatric onset spinal cord injury (SCI) are at higher risk of experiencing dissatisfaction with life and lower perceived physical health when compared to their peers with no disability. To support the prevention of medical complications, young people with SCI must successfully transition to adult health care. Health care transition (HCT) interventions can support young people with chronic conditions in their move to adult health care.

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based HCT intervention codesigned with young people with SCI and parents/caregivers.

Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted online with young people with SCI and parents/caregivers who transitioned or were preparing for the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Interviews were also conducted with health care professionals. The interviews were analyzed using a hybrid deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis process. Feasibility and acceptability were measured using Bowen and colleagues' framework, which includes eight focus areas: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaption, integration, expansion, and limited efficacy.

Results: Overall, participants responded positively to the intervention and believed that it would be useful to young people with SCI and parents/caregivers. Two areas of Bowen et al.'s framework, implementation and integration, require further consideration in terms of how to embed the intervention into the current transition process.

Conclusion: This study found the HCT intervention to be an innovative approach to support young people with SCI and their parent/caregivers that demonstrates promise in the areas of feasibility and acceptability.

References
1.
Elo S, Kyngas H . The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(1):107-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. View

2.
Joss N, Cooklin A, Oldenburg B . A scoping review of end user involvement in disability research. Disabil Health J. 2015; 9(2):189-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.10.001. View

3.
Olmos-Vega F, Stalmeijer R, Varpio L, Kahlke R . A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Med Teach. 2022; :1-11. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287. View

4.
Anderson C, Vogel L, Betz R, Willis K . Overview of adult outcomes in pediatric-onset spinal cord injuries: implications for transition to adulthood. J Spinal Cord Med. 2004; 27 Suppl 1:S98-106. DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2004.11753545. View

5.
Nijland N, van Gemert-Pijnen J, Kelders S, Brandenburg B, Seydel E . Factors influencing the use of a Web-based application for supporting the self-care of patients with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(3):e71. PMC: 3222177. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1603. View