Cargando…
Telehealth delivery of paediatric rehabilitation for children with neurodisability: A mixed methods realist evaluation of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes
BACKGROUND: Teledelivery of rehabilitation services has been proposed as a cost‐effective option for supporting children with neurodisability and their families. However, little is understood of the conditions that support uptake of telehealth in paediatric rehabilitation, what is delivered during t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084377/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35778916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cch.13028 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Teledelivery of rehabilitation services has been proposed as a cost‐effective option for supporting children with neurodisability and their families. However, little is understood of the conditions that support uptake of telehealth in paediatric rehabilitation, what is delivered during telehealth or perceptions of its outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify the context, process and outcomes of telehealth for children with neurodisability and their families. A secondary objective was to identify if variations in these aspects of telehealth occurred for Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand. METHOD: A mixed‐methods, three phase, realist evaluation identified context‐mechanism‐outcome configurations (CMOcs) of telehealth. In Phase 1, the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire indicated factors affecting practitioner uptake of telehealth (Context). In Phase 2, a casenote audit identified ‘practitioner input’ during telehealth (Mechanism). Phase 3 interviews with practitioners and parents explored ‘parent response’ to telehealth and practitioner and parent perceptions of its value (Mechanism and Outcomes). Subgroup analyses for Māori were planned. RESULTS: From Phase 1, practitioners (29/37, 78%) intended to use telehealth; however, few did so regularly (7/37, 22%). Positive experiences of telehealth were described by all practitioners (n = 5) and families (n = 7) in Phase 3. CMOcs explained that practitioners' offering of telehealth occurred when practitioners were confident, valued access to therapy over the familiarity of in‐person delivery, and when practitioners used coaching‐style communication. Parents were receptive to telehealth when they trusted practitioners, felt listened to and were offered telehealth as a choice. When telehealth occurred, access to therapy was timely and more consistent than in‐person delivery. Child outcomes appeared to be positive. Confidence in offering telehealth to Māori was low. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives to improve uptake of telehealth in paediatric rehabilitation should focus on creating conditions for practitioner implementation. Training in telehealth should include engagement with Māori. Adequate workspace and workplace culture change are required if telehealth is to be offered beyond the current ‘early adopters’. |
---|