Objective To develop supplementary knowledge and tools to support the application of motor learning in community-based physiotherapy of geriatric individuals and evaluate physiotherapists’ experiences of the developed knowledge and tools.

Design A prospective case study comprised of two phases: 1) a user-centered design, and 2) a process evaluation.

Setting Community-based physiotherapy practices.

Participants Five physiotherapists were included for the user-centered design and another eight for the process evaluation. Making a total of thirteen participating physiotherapists during this study.

Intervention Not applicable.

Main outcome measures To evaluate the use of the physiotherapists with the extended framework a biweekly monitor was administered. To evaluate the experience of the physiotherapists with the extended framework three digital questionnaires were administered, and a midterm and final in-person evaluation were organized.

Results The user-centered design resulted in a card deck and website with different layers of practical examples and theoretical information. Most of the participating physiotherapists (n = 13) barely used the extended framework during the evaluation period. Commonly reported reasons for not using the extended framework included a lack of time as well as the material’s not fitting into the physiotherapists’ daily routines. They reported, however, that the extended framework increased their motor-learning knowledge and confidence. Some motor-learning strategies were applied much more frequently than others in daily practice. The underlying reasoning regarding the application of some strategies over others varied widely.

Conclusion The results indicate that physiotherapists felt unambiguous regarding the extended framework. The time and energy cost to breaking one’s own routines might have outweighed the potential benefits. Future research should aim to determine whether the extended framework applies similarly in different settings.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

NCT06390800

This study was funded by Regieorgaan SIA (Dutch Organization for Scientific Research Applied Research Fund) under grant number RAAK.PUB09.001.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study protocol (reference number METCZ20230061) was approved by the Ethics Committee from Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors