Capabilities for Using Telemonitoring in Physiotherapy Treatment: Exploratory Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemonitoring (TM), as part of telehealth, allows physiotherapists to monitor and coach their patients using remotely collected data. The use of TM requires a different approach compared with face-to-face treatment. Although a telehealth capability framework exists for health care professionals, it remains unclear what specific capabilities are required to use TM during physiotherapy treatments. Objective: This study aims to identify the capabilities required to use TM in physiotherapy treatment. Methods: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted following a constructivist semistructured grounded theory approach. Three heterogeneous focus groups were conducted with 15 lecturers of the School of Physiotherapy (Bachelor of Science Physiotherapy program) from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Capabilities for using TM in physiotherapy treatment were identified during an iterative process of data collection and analysis, based on an existing framework with 4 different domains. Team discussions supported further conceptualization of the findings. Results: Sixteen capabilities for the use of TM in physiotherapy treatment were found addressing 3 different domains. Four capabilities were identified in the "digital health technologies, systems, and policies" domain, 7 capabilities in the "clinical practice and application" domain, and 5 capabilities in the "data analysis and knowledge creation" domain. No capabilities were identified in the "system and technology implementation" domain. Conclusions: The use of TM in physiotherapy treatment requires specific skills from physiotherapists. To best use TM in physiotherapy treatment, it is important to integrate these capabilities into the education of current and future physiotherapists.
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 | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".