Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists · 2023
A description of the barriers, facilitators, and experiences of hand therapists in providing remote (tele) rehabilitation: An interpretive description approach.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Farzad Maryam, MacDermid Joy, Ferreira Louis, Szekeres Mike, Cuypers Steven, Shafiee Erfan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation is increasingly being used to meet the rehabilitation needs of situations where face-to-face therapy is not possible. Nevertheless, reports on barriers and facilitators of implementing this method from the perspective of therapists still need to be made available.
PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of hand therapists when implementing telerehabilitation, examining the difficulties, barriers, and facilitators encountered during its implementation.
STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study.
METHODS: This study used a purposive sampling method to recruit therapists with varying experiences in telerehabilitation and conducted semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis continued iteratively until thematic saturation was achieved. A total of 14 therapists were interviewed via Zoom. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. The process of interpretive description guided interviews and analysis of the interviews to identify key barriers and facilitators in providing telerehabilitation.
RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Six main themes and 10 corresponding sub-themes were constructed concerning facilitators and barriers to telerehabilitation: factors related to the patient, therapy, therapists, injury, technology, and policy. Therapists implemented different coping strategies in their interventions and measurements to facilitate treatment. However, some interventions, such as orthotic fabrication, could not be done online. Educating therapists, providing a standard method, and integrating with in-person rehabilitation can overcome the barriers to telerehabilitation in hand therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Technology was the main facilitator and, on the other hand, a barrier to providing online hand therapy interventions. Therapists generally reported high satisfaction and usability of this method. Despite all barriers, telerehabilitation can be implemented as a part of hand therapy interventions alongside face-to-face therapy as a hybrid method. The barriers and facilitators experienced and raised by therapists can be added to what is already known regarding telerehabilitation in hand therapy. They might be applied to guide therapeutic procedures and upcoming studies.
PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of hand therapists when implementing telerehabilitation, examining the difficulties, barriers, and facilitators encountered during its implementation.
STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study.
METHODS: This study used a purposive sampling method to recruit therapists with varying experiences in telerehabilitation and conducted semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis continued iteratively until thematic saturation was achieved. A total of 14 therapists were interviewed via Zoom. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. The process of interpretive description guided interviews and analysis of the interviews to identify key barriers and facilitators in providing telerehabilitation.
RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Six main themes and 10 corresponding sub-themes were constructed concerning facilitators and barriers to telerehabilitation: factors related to the patient, therapy, therapists, injury, technology, and policy. Therapists implemented different coping strategies in their interventions and measurements to facilitate treatment. However, some interventions, such as orthotic fabrication, could not be done online. Educating therapists, providing a standard method, and integrating with in-person rehabilitation can overcome the barriers to telerehabilitation in hand therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Technology was the main facilitator and, on the other hand, a barrier to providing online hand therapy interventions. Therapists generally reported high satisfaction and usability of this method. Despite all barriers, telerehabilitation can be implemented as a part of hand therapy interventions alongside face-to-face therapy as a hybrid method. The barriers and facilitators experienced and raised by therapists can be added to what is already known regarding telerehabilitation in hand therapy. They might be applied to guide therapeutic procedures and upcoming studies.