Background: This study was undertaken as part of the development of evidence based national splinting guidelines for the prevention and correction of contractures in adults with neurological dysfunction. The term splinting describes the process of applying a prolonged stretch through a range of devices such as a splint or cast. Contracture formation is complex, and are a common secondary complication of paresis andweakness following nervous system damage. As contractures can limit active function and decrease the ease of care or self-care (passive function), splints and casts can be used as part of an overall goal directed rehabilitation and management programme. However an on-going debate remains as to the apparent effectiveness of splinting as a stretch intervention. Purpose: As there is a paucity of knowledge about the experience of people with neurological conditions using splints or casts, this study aimed to explore what is was like to be the recipient of splinting. Given splinting is an area with clinical uncertainty, the need to hear the voice of service users was an essential component in the development of practice clinical guidelines for therapists. Methods: People who were current or recent users of splints or casts were purposively recruited from local support groups and charity organisations. Volunteers took part in semi-structured interviews to explore the lived experience of splinting for the correction or prevention of contractures; all interviews took place in the participant’s home. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and transcriptions checked against the original recordings. Data were analysed thematically. Another member of the research team independently reviewed the process of coding, first theme identification and the development of the overarching themes, supporting the rigour and transparency of the process. Results: Ten people with a neurological condition (stroke n= 6, brain injury n= 3, multiple sclerosis n= 1) took part in the study. Two participants with communication difficulties chose to include their carers, who were also consented, in their interview.The timepost-insult for the participants varied from 9months to 14 years. Wrists, hands and ankles were the most common joints for splinting. Splinting was undertaken for active and passive function. Five main themes emerged from the data: Sensemaking through goals; Splints in the real world;Looks aren’t everythingbut theydomatter;Motivation and support and the Influence ofRehabilitation Professionals. Conclusion(s): The findings from this study show the importance of the user perspectives in defining the construct of what is an effective intervention. While the experience of splinting could be described for some participants as a ‘double edged sword’, there were nonetheless benefits on a number of levels. These outcomes went beyond the oftused measure of success of range of motion. Service users described being concerned with functional outcomes, active or passive, and with wider participation in society. Implications: Given the multifaceted nature of splinting as a complex intervention,many factors and questions remain about practice and further research is required. The importance of listening to the experience of service users is evident from the insights shared as part of the guideline development process.