Table 6 Integration of feasibility findings
Topic/domain | Quantitative findings | Qualitative findings | Level of consensus | Key interpretations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Recruitment | 10 of 13 agreed to participate: Consent rate = 77% Recruitment rate = 90% | (Carl, SHA) — “It was convenience… It seemed like a good idea, the fact I would be having a bit of a session and not having to travel for it.” (Bill, SHA) — “The biggest thing that piqued my interest … with this it was a little bit more… well, we can hit it [pain and multiple affected joints] from all angles.” (John, SHB) — “It sounded like an interesting programme and I thought it would be doing something positive as well, kind of giving something back. I didn’t know if the exercises… I looked at them and I thought, “Well, I’m not sure if they’re going to work or not, I’ll give it a go.” (Mark, SHA) — “I liked the idea of having routine exercises, and I hoped that it would kickstart me into doing something a bit more structured each week.” | Confirmation | Progression criteria met Recruitment approaches feasible Virtual delivery and perceived relevance of content positively facilitated decision to take part |
Fidelity | Intervention delivery Virtually = 80.4% Telephone = 19.6% | (Liz, Physiotherapist) — “There were a couple of people who we did that on the phone rather than having a camera, but that’s just… one chap it’s just not… that’s just not his thing. You just have to take their word for it that they’re doing the right thing.” (Bill, SHA) — “I always did it over the phone. Not because I have a problem with group sessions or anything like that – I was more of a difficult patient because I do shift work. So, the phone calls were easier.” (Mark, SHA) — “And if the worst comes to the worst you can always switch off the video – you don’t have to see people. The important thing is actually hearing the physio going through the programme and timing you and saying, “Three, two, one, start,” and then telling you when the 30 s was up.” (John, SHB) — “There were a couple of times when my Wi-Fi was off on my laptop and I was stuck on my phone, but… Yes, we just had a laugh about that, but that was ok. With modern technology… ok, maybe doing it on a phone isn’t ideal but you can still do it.” | Expansion | Progression criteria partially met Although fidelity compromised by use of telephone, for those that did use it, it was acceptable in terms of burden and ease of participation Further investigation needed to clarify effect on inclusion and equity in participation |
Safety | Seven non-serious incidents Increased joint pain (n = 3) Joint bleed (n = 1) Muscle pain/sprain (n = 2) No serious adverse events | (Jack, SHA) — “I find them quite safe doing them and not… I mean, even before I was always doing some kind of exercise.” (Luke, SHA) — “I think I did treat out of prophylaxis once, and that was for… the thigh was really sore. I thought, “Let me treat so that it doesn’t mess with the routine. If it is a bleed or if it is something more than just tautness, let me treat this.” (Liam, SHA) — “For the squats and the lunges I had a chair next to me that I could hold onto… it was there, just a kind of confidence thing, really. So, yes, it felt safe. I had plenty of room around me.” | Confirmation | Progression criteria met Study was safe Responsibility to self-assess for additional treatment was not a burden Individualising exercises enhanced feeling safe |
Attrition | PROMs completion • T0 = 10 • T1 = 7 • T2 = 6 • Interviews: N = 9 • No withdrawals | Silence in qualitative data | Progression criteria not met Postal return of PROMs was inconsistent; further studies will need to consider alternate ways to collect data | |
Adherence | Attendance • All sessions = 68% • Individual sessions = 84.5% • Group sessions = 52.1% | Silence in qualitative data | ||
Study administration | (Liz, Physiotherapist) — “There was a lot of… obviously, the admin side of it, but a lot of that is just because it’s a study. Because I was thinking, practically, how could this work if you do it outside of a study.” (Liz, Physiotherapist) — “I had them each hour and that was enough time for me to then do the little bit of a start, do the main session, say goodbye, do the notes, do the next one … you needed that hour to do the admin bits either side. Yes, 45 min would have been stressful to do all five in a one till five chunk of time.” (Dan, Physiotherapist) — “It does take up quite a lot of time doing it that way… I got quite lucky with the participants, that once I had them in and we just said, “Ok, well, this is what we’re going to do and these are the proposed dates. How does that work for you?” there was really hardly any issues with all six of them.” (Dan, Physiotherapist) — “Six would be a… six would be, I would say, an absolute max. So, it would be doable with enough planning, but I think it would be a challenge. Because it essentially takes up a day of work when you’ve got the six.” | Silence in quantitative data | Whilst virtual delivery viewed positively, perceived increased burden of study administration by physiotherapists Further studies will need to be mindful of time required to deliver study against physiotherapist hours available for haemophilia services |