Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:37:58.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Service Evaluation of a Boxercise Programme in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Alexander Graham*
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
Leah Canning
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
Meenakshi Lachman
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

We undertook a service evaluation obtaining feedback from service users in an inpatient rehabilitation setting about a weekly Boxercise class. The aim was to assess the experiences of service users, and the role it has in their recovery.

We hypothesised that the class would be well received by service users in aspects of enjoyment, impact on biopsychosocial wellbeing and recovery based on positive comments made by service users.

There is an increasing trend to utilise physical activity as an adjunct to improve mental health within healthcare settings; to increase motivation, educate on healthier lifestyles and to enhance well-being outcomes. This Boxercise programme has been developed by the Healthy Living Advisor within the rehabilitation inpatient facility at Leeds and York Partnership Trust. The programme has run for one year, and there has been a large uptake of service users who participate in the group. The Boxercise classes aim to encourage discipline, communication, spatial awareness, and cognitive skills in a modality that is interesting to service users.

Methods

Service users who are regular participants in a Boxercise programme at an inpatient rehabilitation centre completed a questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale assessed participant views across seven domains. Participants were then asked to write three words that describe their feelings about the Boxercise programme, complete a drawing showing their thoughts after a Boxercise class and provide suggestions for improvement.

Results

Eleven participants completed the questionnaire. Average scores for the domains were as follows: enjoyability 4.45/5 (89%), physical health 4.55/5 (91%), mental health 4.27/5 (85%), recovery 4.09/5 (82%), socialising 3.91/5 (82%), safety 4.64/5 (93%), continue after discharge 3.36/5 (67%).

The ‘three words' were put in a word cloud generator with highest weighted words: ‘Fun', ‘Good', ‘Energetic', ‘Confident'.

Common themes from the pictures shown were smiling faces and ‘strongman' images.

Six participants gave feedback that more equipment (pads and gloves) would help to improve their experience in the classes.

Conclusion

The Boxercise programme received positive feedback from participants that aligns with the hypothesis; particularly in safety, enjoyability, benefit to physical health and benefit to mental health.

The participants had positive views on the class as an adjunct to the management of their physical and mental wellbeing. The feedback from all the participants is that they felt safe during the classes.

This service evaluation indicates that the participants value the Boxercise classes as an enjoyable activity and as an adjunct to their treatment.

Type
4 Service Evaluation
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.