The Australian journal of rural health · 2020
Conducting community rehabilitation review sessions via videoconference: A feasibility study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wundersitz Claire, Caelli Adrian, Georgy Jessica, Musovic Amie, Manning Renita, Prause Melissa, Robertson Janet, Taylor Nicholas F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a single videoconferencing session (telerehabilitation) instead of a face-to-face home visit for a review appointment in a community rehabilitation program.
DESIGN: A feasibility study based on Bowen's framework was used to determine demand, acceptability, limited efficacy and practicality of telerehabilitation. The study involved qualitative and quantitative data analysis.
SETTING: Two Victorian community rehabilitation programs providing services to large geographical catchment zones in the outer fringe of a metropolitan area.
PARTICIPANTS: Ten adult clients receiving home-based therapy and 5 allied health clinicians working in the program.
INTERVENTIONS: Clients participated in a single review therapy appointment (telerehabilitation) from physiotherapy, dietetics or speech pathology using the health network's videoconferencing platfrom and the client's own electronic device.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demand was assessed by calculating the percentage of eligible clients able to participate compared to total number of home-based clients. Acceptability, practicality and limited efficacy were explored through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews.
RESULTS: Nearly one quarter of clients screened met eligibility criteria, indicating a large potential demand for telerehabilitation. Telerehabilitation was highly acceptable for clinicians and clients participating in speech pathology and dietitian sessions as these contain targeted education and talking-based therapy. It was less accepted in physiotherapy, where there is a more hands-on approach. Telerehabilitation was practical and efficient for both clinicians and clients, especially when time was allowed for training and initial troubleshooting.
CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation is a feasible modality for review sessions in community rehabilitation and helps improve efficient use of clinician and client time. It is more appropriate for disciplines that use education and talking-based therapy compared with hands-on therapy. Older clients are accepting of new technology with support and education.
DESIGN: A feasibility study based on Bowen's framework was used to determine demand, acceptability, limited efficacy and practicality of telerehabilitation. The study involved qualitative and quantitative data analysis.
SETTING: Two Victorian community rehabilitation programs providing services to large geographical catchment zones in the outer fringe of a metropolitan area.
PARTICIPANTS: Ten adult clients receiving home-based therapy and 5 allied health clinicians working in the program.
INTERVENTIONS: Clients participated in a single review therapy appointment (telerehabilitation) from physiotherapy, dietetics or speech pathology using the health network's videoconferencing platfrom and the client's own electronic device.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demand was assessed by calculating the percentage of eligible clients able to participate compared to total number of home-based clients. Acceptability, practicality and limited efficacy were explored through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews.
RESULTS: Nearly one quarter of clients screened met eligibility criteria, indicating a large potential demand for telerehabilitation. Telerehabilitation was highly acceptable for clinicians and clients participating in speech pathology and dietitian sessions as these contain targeted education and talking-based therapy. It was less accepted in physiotherapy, where there is a more hands-on approach. Telerehabilitation was practical and efficient for both clinicians and clients, especially when time was allowed for training and initial troubleshooting.
CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation is a feasible modality for review sessions in community rehabilitation and helps improve efficient use of clinician and client time. It is more appropriate for disciplines that use education and talking-based therapy compared with hands-on therapy. Older clients are accepting of new technology with support and education.