Barlow Ingrid G, Liu Lili, Sekulic Angela
Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Int J Telerehabil. 2009 Sep 4;1(1):17-28. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2009.868. eCollection 2009 Fall.
This study compared outcomes of wheelchair seating and positioning interventions provided by telerehabilitation (n=10) and face-to-face (n=20; 10 in each of two comparison groups, one urban and one rural). Comparison clients were matched to the telerehabilitation clients in age, diagnosis, and type of seating components received. Clients and referring therapists rated their satisfaction and identified if seating intervention goals were met. Clients recorded travel expenses incurred or saved, and all therapists recorded time spent providing service. Wait times and completion times were tracked. Clients seen by telerehabilitation had similar satisfaction ratings and were as likely to have their goals met as clients seen face-to-face; telerehabilitation clients saved travel costs. Rural referring therapists who used telerehabilitation spent more time in preparation and follow-up than the other groups. Clients assessed by telerehabilitation had shorter wait times for assessment than rural face-to-face clients, but their interventions took as long to complete.
本研究比较了远程康复（n = 10）和面对面（n = 20；两个比较组各10名，一组在城市，一组在农村）提供的轮椅座位和定位干预的结果。将对照客户与远程康复客户在年龄、诊断和所接受的座位组件类型方面进行匹配。客户和转诊治疗师对他们的满意度进行评分，并确定座位干预目标是否实现。客户记录产生或节省的差旅费，所有治疗师记录提供服务所花费的时间。跟踪等待时间和完成时间。接受远程康复治疗的客户的满意度评分相似，实现目标的可能性与面对面治疗的客户相同；远程康复客户节省了差旅费。使用远程康复的农村转诊治疗师在准备和随访方面比其他组花费更多时间。通过远程康复评估的客户比农村面对面治疗的客户等待评估的时间更短，但他们的干预完成时间相同。
