Search results

Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is an effective intervention for arm recovery following acquired brain injury; however, there is an evidence-practice gap between research and CIMT use in practice. The aim of this study was to identify individual, organisational and social factors enabling implementation and sustained delivery of CIMT programs internationally.

Descriptive qualitative design. Purposive sampling was used to recruit occupational therapists and physiotherapists with previous experience delivering CIMT. Semi- structured interviews were conducted, using an interview schedule informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore individual factors (such as knowledge, skills and beliefs), organisational factors (such as organisational culture and resources) and social factors (such as leadership) influencing CIMT implementation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and managed using NVivo. The TDF guided data analysis and identification of key influences on CIMT implementation and sustainability.

Eleven participants (n = 7 [63.6%] occupational therapists and n = 4 [36.4%] physiotherapists) were interviewed from six countries, working across public (n = 6, 54.6%) and private health (n = 5, 45.5%). Six key domains influenced CIMT implementation and sustainability. Clinicians needed knowledge and opportunities to apply their skills, and confidence in their ability to implement CIMT. Within their workplace, supportive social influences (including broader team support), the environmental context (including organisational culture and resources) and reinforcement from seeing positive outcomes contributed to implementation and sustainability. Other important influences included community demand and tailoring of programs to meet individual needs.

This is the first study to examine therapists' experiences of CIMT implementation and sustainability across multiple countries. Factors related to capacity building, social and organisational support and resources enabled CIMT program implementation and ongoing sustainability. These findings can be used to design behaviour change interventions to support CIMT use in practice.

This paper explores four works of contemporary fiction to illuminate formal and informal regulation of sex. The paper’s co-authors frame analysis with the story of their creation of a transdisciplinary course, entitled “Regulating Sex: Historical and Cultural Encounters,” in which students mined literature for social critique, became immersed in the study of law and its limits, and developed increased sensitivity to power, its uses, and abuses. The paper demonstrates the value theoretically and pedagogically of third-wave feminisms, wild zones, and contact zones as analytic constructs and contends that including sex and sexualities in conversations transforms personal experience, education, society, and culture, including law.

The purpose is to offer a critique of the process of decision-making by top university administrators and to analyze how their decisions imposed their preferences and expanded administrative control.

In the fall of 2021, the top administrators at Boston-based Northeastern University required that all members of the university community return to fully on-campus face-to-face work. That decision involved a return to what was labeled “normal operations” and followed a year-and-a-half of adjustments to the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on that case example, the analysis then ranges backward and forward in time. Other decisions – by Northeastern University leaders as well as leaders at other schools – are considered as well.

Leaders impose labels on complex contingencies as a way of constructing meaning. No label is objectively true or indisputable. In the hands of individuals who possess hierarchical power and authority, the application of a label such as “new normal” represents an exercise of power. Through an exploration and analysis of the underlying, unspoken, assumptions behind the application of the “new normal” label, the article suggests how the interests of university leaders were being advanced.

Because of its reliance on labeling, the paper focuses mainly on the words of administrators – at Northeastern University and elsewhere – that are called upon to explain/justify decisions. The multiplicity of interests forwarded by the “new normal” label are explored. No attempt is made – nor would it be possible – to understand what was in the hearts and minds of these administrators.

The article makes a case that any and all pronouncements of leaders should be understood as assertions of power and statements of interests. The practical impact is to suggest a critical analysis to be applied to all such pronouncements.

The approach taken in this article is situated within post-modernist analysis that critiques dominant narratives, disputes epistemological certainty and ontological objectivity and takes cognizance of coded messages contained in language.

Everyone has been through a traumatic period of time with the pandemic. The author has focused on a specific community – university administrators and tenure/tenure track faculty – as a window to help explain how decision-makers shaped their response. The author wants to emphasize the labels imposed by leaders and the assumptions behind the application of those labels.