(P3) There was also a perception that the trial had an effect on patient morale. Only once a week to try overground walking over 10-m

Walk Test was a problem for morale of patients. (P3) The results of this study indicate that physiotherapists involved in delivering the intervention in a randomised trial have both positive and negative perceptions about their involvement in the research process. Despite most of the physiotherapists having a preference for which intervention group they would like each of their patients to be in and being frustrated if their patients were in a different group, the majority were happy with the intervention they Crizotinib delivered. In general, the physiotherapists felt the participation in clinical research was something they could manage and that they were well supported by the research team. Furthermore, the physiotherapists felt they were contributing to the body of evidence for clinical practice. On selleck products the negative side, physiotherapists felt that the design of the trial was restrictive by not always being reflective of routine practice and that trial participation sometimes had a negative impact on themselves, the patients, and the department. However, the overriding perception was that of enjoying the trial and a wish to be involved in further clinical research. There were

two aspects of the MOBILISE trial that may have influenced the perceptions of the physiotherapists. First, since this trial compared usual practice with a novel intervention, the physiotherapists had to deliver two different interventions. This meant that, regardless of which

intervention they thought was most appropriate for an individual patient, they might have had to deliver the other intervention. In CYTH4 many trials, the control group either receives no intervention or only one intervention is delivered per site in a cluster-randomised trial. Despite all the patients meeting a stringent inclusion criterion (not walking within one month after stroke), physiotherapists had strong opinions about which intervention would suit individual patients. However, they were all prepared to follow the trial protocol in spite of these opinions because of their commitment to gathering evidence that would be relevant to their clinical practice. Second, the design of the trial was such that patients received the intervention until they could walk (or were discharged), ie, there was no defined time of participation in the trial. Physiotherapists commented that this might have had an impact on the decisions made about individual patients, eg, discharge date being changed in order to keep a patient in the trial. However, there is no indication that one group benefited from this more than another. There is little research exploring perceptions of health professionals delivering the intervention in trials.