There were a number of ways in which participation in the MOBILSE trial was perceived by physiotherapists as being of value. First, they felt aspects of the trial design were feasible to carry out and reflective of clinical practice. Good design trial because half hour was very reflective of clinical practice, clinically focused trial. (P1) Second,

they felt the research team offered them good support in carrying out the trial and keeping them informed as to how it was progressing. It was good to have someone independent coming in once a mTOR inhibitor review week to keep it on agenda. (P9) Third, some physiotherapists reported that the trial record keeping was not a burden. Paperwork was okay, kept idea of practice. (P11) Fourth, the physiotherapists indicated benefits from using equipment supplied by the research team to deliver the interventions. Specially-designed chair was very helpful in protecting therapist’s back. (P5) Finally, participants generally enjoyed participating in the trial. Glad to be involved. (P9) In addition, many of the physiotherapists expressed that a trial such selleck inhibitor as this should be helpful in furthering the knowledge base for clinicians delivering rehabilitation to stroke patients. Very valuable

trial to get valid evidence to support use of treadmill. (P8) Theme 2: Negative aspects of being involved in clinical research. This theme consisted of 2 main sub-themes: that the intervention delivered during the MOBILISE trial was not always reflective of usual practice and that there was some negative impact on departments, therapists and patients ( Table 4). The majority of physiotherapists pointed out the challenges in following the intervention protocol and how it sometimes differed from usual practice in terms of the amount of

therapist assistance allowed during walking training. Assistance of 1 person does not represent normal practice, 2–3 assistants are the normal. (P7) Second, the protocol differed in terms of use of aids to train walking. Some patients are usually trained with a walking stick, which clashed with the protocol. (P5) The issue of how participation in the study affected departments and was mentioned. There was a feeling that patients who were enrolled in the MOBILISE trial were prioritised over other patients so that the protocol could be adhered to and that this may affect their discharge date. Patient’s in the trial received more therapy than those not in the trial because of protocol adherence. (P4) In terms of the impact of the trial on physiotherapists, they reported some extra burden. Treadmill is hard work on the therapist, half an hour in a row. (P4) Some physiotherapists expressed that the patients in one or other group were disadvantaged by the constraints of the protocol. Treadmill group had limited overground walking practice because they had to reach 0.