Laver Kate, Ratcliffe Julie, George Stacey, Lester Laurence, Crotty Maria
Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Aust Occup Ther J. 2013 Apr;60(2):93-100. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12018. Epub 2012 Dec 19.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Understanding the differences in preferences of patients and occupational therapists for the way in which rehabilitation services are provided is important. In particular, it is unknown whether new approaches to rehabilitation such as high intensity therapy and virtual reality programs are more or less acceptable than traditional approaches.
A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess and compare the acceptability of these new approaches, relative to other characteristics of the rehabilitation program. The study included patients participating in a stroke or medical rehabilitation program (n = 100), occupational therapists (n = 23) and other clinicians (n = 91) working in rehabilitation settings at three hospitals in South Australia. Data were analysed using a conditional (fixed-effects) logistic regression model.
The model coefficient attached to very high intensity therapy programs (defined as six hours per day) was negative and highly statistically significant for both patients and therapists indicating aversion for this option. In addition, other rehabilitation clinicians and patients were strongly averse to the use of virtual reality programs (as evidenced by the negative and highly statistically significant coefficient attached to this attribute for both groups) relative to occupational therapists.
The comparison of the views of patients, occupational therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians revealed some differences. All participants (patients and clinicians) showed an inclination for programs that resulted in the best recovery. However, patients expressed stronger preferences than clinicians for traditional therapy approaches. As a group, occupational therapists were most likely to accept approaches such as virtual reality suggesting changes away from traditional delivery methods will be more readily integrated into practice.
背景/目的:了解患者和职业治疗师对康复服务提供方式的偏好差异非常重要。特别是,高强度治疗和虚拟现实程序等新的康复方法与传统方法相比,其可接受程度是更高还是更低尚不清楚。
进行了一项离散选择实验,以评估和比较这些新方法相对于康复计划的其他特征的可接受性。该研究纳入了参与中风或医疗康复计划的患者(n = 100)、职业治疗师(n = 23)以及在南澳大利亚三家医院的康复机构工作的其他临床医生(n = 91)。使用条件(固定效应)逻辑回归模型对数据进行分析。
对于患者和治疗师而言,与每天六小时的极高强度治疗计划相关的模型系数均为负数且具有高度统计学意义,表明对该选项存在厌恶。此外,相对于职业治疗师,其他康复临床医生和患者强烈厌恶使用虚拟现实程序(两组对此属性的系数均为负数且具有高度统计学意义,证明了这一点)。
对患者、职业治疗师和其他康复临床医生观点的比较揭示了一些差异。所有参与者(患者和临床医生)都倾向于能带来最佳康复效果的计划。然而,患者比临床医生更倾向于传统治疗方法。总体而言,职业治疗师最有可能接受虚拟现实等方法,这表明与传统提供方式不同的改变将更容易融入实践。