Barriers, Facilitators, and Requirements for a Telerehabilitation Aftercare Program for Patients After Occupational Injuries: Semistructured Interviews With Key Stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with occupational injuries often receive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for a rapid return to work. Rehabilitation aftercare programs give patients the opportunity to help patients apply the progress they have made during the rehabilitation to their everyday activities. Telerehabilitation aftercare programs can help reduce barriers, such as lack of time due to other commitments, because they can be used regardless of time or location. Careful identification of barriers, facilitators, and design requirements with key stakeholders is a critical step in developing a telerehabilitation aftercare program. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify barriers, facilitators, and design requirements for a future telerehabilitation aftercare program for patients with occupational injuries from the perspective of the key stakeholders. METHODS: We used a literature review and expert recommendations to identify key stakeholders. We conducted semistructured interviews in person and via real-time video calls with 27 key stakeholders to collect data. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was applied. We selected key stakeholder statements about facilitators and barriers and categorized them as individual, technical, environmental, and organizational facilitators and barriers. We identified expressions that captured aspects that the telerehabilitation aftercare program should fulfill and clustered them into attributes and overarching values. We translated the attributes into one or more requirements and grouped them into content, functional, service, user experience, and work context requirements. RESULTS: The key stakeholders identified can be grouped into the following categories: patients, health care professionals, administrative personnel, and members of the telerehabilitation program design and development team. The most frequently reported facilitators of a future telerehabilitation aftercare program were time savings for patients, high motivation of the patients to participate in telerehabilitation aftercare program, high usability of the program, and regular in-person therapy meetings during the telerehabilitation aftercare program. The most frequently reported barriers were low digital affinity and skills of the patients and personnel, patients' lack of trust and acceptance of the telerehabilitation aftercare program, slow internet speed, program functionality problems (eg, application crashes or freezes), and inability of telerehabilitation to deliver certain elements of in-person rehabilitation aftercare such as monitoring exercise performance. In our study, the most common design requirements were reducing barriers and implementing facilitators. The 2 most frequently discussed overarching values were tailoring of telerehabilitation, such as a tailored exercise plan and tailored injury-related information, and social interaction, such as real-time psychotherapy and digital and in-person rehabilitation aftercare in a blended care approach. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders reported on facilitators, barriers, and design requirements that should be considered throughout the development process. Tailoring telerehabilitation content was the key value for stakeholders to ensure the program could meet the needs of patients with different types of occupational injuries.
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 | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".