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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |