Clinicians’ Experiences of Implementing a Telerehabilitation Toolkit During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Descriptive Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Although the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid implementation and scale-up of telehealth for patients in need of rehabilitation, an overall slower scaling up to telerehabilitation has been documented. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to understand experiences of implementing telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as using the Toronto Rehab Telerehab Toolkit from the perspective of rehabilitation professionals across Canada and internationally. METHODS The study adopted a qualitative descriptive approach that consisted of telephone- or videoconference-supported interviews and focus groups. Participants included rehabilitation providers as well as health care leaders who had used the Toronto Rehab Telerehab Toolkit. Each participant took part in a semi-structured interview or focus group, lasting approximately 30-40 minutes. Thematic analysis was used to understand the barriers and enablers of providing telerehabilitation and implementing the Toronto Rehab Telerehab Toolkit. Three members of the research team independently analyzed a set of the same transcripts and met after each set to discuss their analysis. RESULTS A total of 22 participants participated, and 7 interviews and 4 focus groups were included. The data of participants were collected from both Canadian (Alberta, New Brunswick, and Ontario) and international sites (Australia, Greece, and South Korea). A total of 11 sites were represented, 5 of which focused on neurological rehabilitation. Participants included health care providers (ie, physicians, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech language pathologists, and social workers), managers and system leaders, as well as research and education professionals. Overall, 4 themes were identified including (1) implementation considerations for telerehabilitation, encompassing 2 subthemes of “infrastructure, equipment, and space” and “leadership and organizational support”; (2) innovations developed as a result of telerehabilitation; (3) the toolkit as a catalyst for implementing telerehabilitation; and (4) recommendations for improving the toolkit. CONCLUSIONS Findings from this qualitative study confirm some of the previously identified experiences with implementing telerehabilitation, but from the perspective of Canadian and international rehabilitation providers and leaders. These findings include the importance of adequate infrastructure, equipment, and space; the key role of organizational or leadership support in adopting telerehabilitation; and availing resources to implement it. Importantly, participants in our study described the toolkit as an important resource to broker networking opportunities and highlighted the need to pivot to telerehabilitation, especially early in the pandemic. Findings from this study will be used to improve the next iteration of the toolkit (Toolkit 2.0) to promote safe, accessible, and effective telerehabilitation to those patients in need in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».