Telerehabilitation for People With Physical Disabilities and Movement Impairment: A Survey of United Kingdom Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation is a feasible and potentially effective alternative to face-to-face rehabilitation. However, specific guidance, training, and support for practitioners who undertake remote assessments in people with physical disabilities and movement impairment are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this survey of United Kingdom-based health and social care practitioners were to explore experiences, assess training needs, and collate ideas on best practices in telerehabilitation for physical disabilities and movement impairment. The aim will be to use the findings to inform a practical tool kit and training package for telerehabilitation use. METHODS: UK rehabilitation practitioners were invited to complete an online questionnaire from November to December 2020. Opportunity and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants from professional and educational networks, special interest groups, and via social media. Closed questionnaire items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative inductive analysis using NVivo was used for open responses. RESULTS: There were 247 respondents, of which 177 (72%) were physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Most (n=207, 84%) had used video-based consultations (typically supported by telephone and email), and the use of this method had increased in frequency since the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioners perceived telerehabilitation positively overall and recognized benefits for patients including a reduced infection risk, convenience and flexibility, and reduced travel and fatigue. Common obstacles were technology related (eg, internet connection), practical (eg, difficulty positioning the camera), patient related (eg, health status), practitioner related (eg, lack of technical skills), and organizational (eg, lack of access to technology). Support from family members or carers was a major facilitator for successful remote consultations. Of the 207 respondents who had used video-based consultations, 103 (50%) had assessed physical impairments using this method, 107 (52%) had assessed physical function, and 121 (59%) had used patient-reported outcome measures. Although practitioners generally felt confident in delivering video-based consultations, they felt less proficient in undertaking remote physical assessments, expressing concerns about validity, reliability, and safety. Only 46 of the 247 (19%) respondents had received any training in telerehabilitation or video consultations, and some felt they were "feeling their way in the dark." Practitioners desired training and guidance on physical assessment tools suitable for remote use, when to use video-based consultations or alternative methods, governance issues, digital platforms, and signposting to digital skills training for themselves and their patients. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners rapidly adopted telerehabilitation for people with physical disabilities and movement impairment. However, there are technical, practical, and organizational obstacles to overcome, and a clear need for improved guidance and training in remote physical assessments. The findings of this survey will inform the development of a tool kit of resources and a training package for the current and future workforce in telerehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".