Cargando…

Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare profess...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brouns, B., Meesters, J. J. L., Wentink, M. M., de Kloet, A. J., Arwert, H. J., Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M., Boyce, L. W., van Bodegom-Vos, L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-5
_version_ 1783366430416175104
author Brouns, B.
Meesters, J. J. L.
Wentink, M. M.
de Kloet, A. J.
Arwert, H. J.
Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M.
Boyce, L. W.
van Bodegom-Vos, L.
author_facet Brouns, B.
Meesters, J. J. L.
Wentink, M. M.
de Kloet, A. J.
Arwert, H. J.
Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M.
Boyce, L. W.
van Bodegom-Vos, L.
author_sort Brouns, B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care). CONCLUSION: Although there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6206819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62068192018-10-31 Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands Brouns, B. Meesters, J. J. L. Wentink, M. M. de Kloet, A. J. Arwert, H. J. Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M. Boyce, L. W. van Bodegom-Vos, L. Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care). CONCLUSION: Although there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately. BioMed Central 2018-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6206819/ /pubmed/30373611 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Brouns, B.
Meesters, J. J. L.
Wentink, M. M.
de Kloet, A. J.
Arwert, H. J.
Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M.
Boyce, L. W.
van Bodegom-Vos, L.
Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title_full Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title_fullStr Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title_short Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the Netherlands
title_sort why the uptake of erehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult—a focus group study in the netherlands
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-5
work_keys_str_mv AT brounsb whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT meestersjjl whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT wentinkmm whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT dekloetaj whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT arwerthj whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT vlietvlielandtpm whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT boycelw whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands
AT vanbodegomvosl whytheuptakeoferehabilitationprogramsinstrokecareissodifficultafocusgroupstudyinthenetherlands