Brouns Berber, van Bodegom-Vos Leti, de Kloet Arend J, Vliet Vlieland Thea P M, Gil Ingrid L C, Souza Lígia M N, Braga Lucia W, Meesters Jorit J L
Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Faculty of Health, Nutrition and Sports, The Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 1;20(1):488. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05339-7.
To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke among Brazilian Healthcare Professionals (BHP) and Dutch Healthcare Professionals (DHP).
A cross-sectional survey study including 88 statements about factors related to the use of eRehabilitation (4-point Likert scale; 1-4; unimportant-important/disagree-agree). The survey was conducted among BHP and DHP (physical therapists, rehabilitating physicians and psychologists). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation.
ninety-nine (response rate 30%) BHP and 105 (response rate 37%) DHP participated. Differences were found in the top-10 most influencing statements between BHP and DHP BHP rated the following factors as most important: sufficient support from the organisation (e.g. the rehabilitation centre) concerning resources and time, and potential benefits of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient. DHP rated the feasibility of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient (e.g. a helpdesk and good instructions) as most important for effective uptake. Top-10 least important statements were mostly similar; both BHP and DHP rated problems caused by stroke (e.g. aphasia or cognitive problems) or problems with resources (e.g. hardware and software) as least important for the uptake of eRehabilitation.
The results indicate that the use of eRehabilitation after stroke by BHP and DHP is influenced by different factors. A tailored implementation strategy for both countries needs to be developed.
为提高中风后电子康复的应用,需要识别在世界各地不同医疗环境中影响其应用的障碍和促进因素。因此,本研究旨在调查巴西医疗保健专业人员(BHP)和荷兰医疗保健专业人员(DHP)在中风后影响电子康复应用的因素方面的异同。
一项横断面调查研究,包括88条关于电子康复应用相关因素的陈述(4点李克特量表;1 - 4;不重要 - 重要/不同意 - 同意)。该调查在BHP和DHP(物理治疗师、康复医生和心理学家)中进行。使用描述性统计分析影响电子康复应用的因素的异同。
99名(回复率30%)BHP和105名(回复率37%)DHP参与了调查。在BHP和DHP之间影响最大的前10条陈述中发现了差异。BHP将以下因素评为最重要:组织(如康复中心)在资源和时间方面的充分支持,以及电子康复对患者的潜在益处。DHP将电子康复对患者的可行性(如服务台和良好的说明)评为有效应用的最重要因素。影响最小的前10条陈述大多相似;BHP和DHP都将中风引起的问题(如失语或认知问题)或资源问题(如硬件和软件)评为电子康复应用中最不重要的因素。
结果表明,BHP和DHP在中风后对电子康复的应用受不同因素影响。需要为两国制定量身定制的实施策略。