Patients' Satisfaction of Healthcare Services and Perception with In-Home Telerehabilitation and Physiotherapists' Satisfaction Toward Technology for Post-Knee Arthroplasty: An Embedded Study in a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We measured the satisfaction of both patients and healthcare professionals with the technologies and services provided during in-home telerehabilitation as an alternative to conventional rehabilitation after discharge from total knee arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: This study was embedded in a larger controlled trial where 48 community-living older adults who received total knee arthroplasty were recruited prior to discharge from acute care following surgery and randomly assigned to treatment arms (Tele and Comparison). The participants' satisfaction with the services was assessed at the end of the intervention for both groups using the Healthcare Satisfaction Questionnaire. For the Tele group, the patients' perception of in-home telehealth was assessed before treatment and after completion of teletreatments. The satisfaction of the healthcare professionals with the technology during the telerehabilitation services was noted at the end of each treatment session using a technical quality subjective appreciation questionnaire. RESULTS: Both groups of patients (Tele and Comparison) were satisfied with the services received and no significant difference was observed between them. Moreover, the physiotherapists' satisfaction with regard to goal achievement, patient-therapist relationship, overall session satisfaction, and quality and performance of the technological platform was high. CONCLUSIONS: As patient satisfaction is important in maintaining motivation and treatment compliance and the satisfaction of healthcare professionals must be high in order for new treatments to become mainstream in clinics, the results show that in-home telerehabilitation seems to be a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".