Cargando…

Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND: To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brouns, Berber, van Bodegom-Vos, Leti, de Kloet, Arend J., Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M., Gil, Ingrid L. C., Souza, Lígia M. N., Braga, Lucia W., Meesters, Jorit J. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32487255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05339-7
_version_ 1783541606880641024
author Brouns, Berber
van Bodegom-Vos, Leti
de Kloet, Arend J.
Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M.
Gil, Ingrid L. C.
Souza, Lígia M. N.
Braga, Lucia W.
Meesters, Jorit J. L.
author_facet Brouns, Berber
van Bodegom-Vos, Leti
de Kloet, Arend J.
Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M.
Gil, Ingrid L. C.
Souza, Lígia M. N.
Braga, Lucia W.
Meesters, Jorit J. L.
author_sort Brouns, Berber
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke among Brazilian Healthcare Professionals (BHP) and Dutch Healthcare Professionals (DHP). METHOD: A cross-sectional survey study including 88 statements about factors related to the use of eRehabilitation (4-point Likert scale; 1–4; unimportant-important/disagree-agree). The survey was conducted among BHP and DHP (physical therapists, rehabilitating physicians and psychologists). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation. RESULTS: ninety-nine (response rate 30%) BHP and 105 (response rate 37%) DHP participated. Differences were found in the top-10 most influencing statements between BHP and DHP BHP rated the following factors as most important: sufficient support from the organisation (e.g. the rehabilitation centre) concerning resources and time, and potential benefits of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient. DHP rated the feasibility of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient (e.g. a helpdesk and good instructions) as most important for effective uptake. Top-10 least important statements were mostly similar; both BHP and DHP rated problems caused by stroke (e.g. aphasia or cognitive problems) or problems with resources (e.g. hardware and software) as least important for the uptake of eRehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the use of eRehabilitation after stroke by BHP and DHP is influenced by different factors. A tailored implementation strategy for both countries needs to be developed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7268386
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72683862020-06-07 Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals Brouns, Berber van Bodegom-Vos, Leti de Kloet, Arend J. Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M. Gil, Ingrid L. C. Souza, Lígia M. N. Braga, Lucia W. Meesters, Jorit J. L. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke among Brazilian Healthcare Professionals (BHP) and Dutch Healthcare Professionals (DHP). METHOD: A cross-sectional survey study including 88 statements about factors related to the use of eRehabilitation (4-point Likert scale; 1–4; unimportant-important/disagree-agree). The survey was conducted among BHP and DHP (physical therapists, rehabilitating physicians and psychologists). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation. RESULTS: ninety-nine (response rate 30%) BHP and 105 (response rate 37%) DHP participated. Differences were found in the top-10 most influencing statements between BHP and DHP BHP rated the following factors as most important: sufficient support from the organisation (e.g. the rehabilitation centre) concerning resources and time, and potential benefits of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient. DHP rated the feasibility of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient (e.g. a helpdesk and good instructions) as most important for effective uptake. Top-10 least important statements were mostly similar; both BHP and DHP rated problems caused by stroke (e.g. aphasia or cognitive problems) or problems with resources (e.g. hardware and software) as least important for the uptake of eRehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the use of eRehabilitation after stroke by BHP and DHP is influenced by different factors. A tailored implementation strategy for both countries needs to be developed. BioMed Central 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7268386/ /pubmed/32487255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05339-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Brouns, Berber
van Bodegom-Vos, Leti
de Kloet, Arend J.
Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M.
Gil, Ingrid L. C.
Souza, Lígia M. N.
Braga, Lucia W.
Meesters, Jorit J. L.
Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title_full Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title_fullStr Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title_full_unstemmed Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title_short Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals
title_sort differences in factors influencing the use of erehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between brazilian and dutch healthcare professionals
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32487255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05339-7
work_keys_str_mv AT brounsberber differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT vanbodegomvosleti differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT dekloetarendj differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT vlietvlielandtheapm differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT gilingridlc differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT souzaligiamn differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT bragaluciaw differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals
AT meestersjoritjl differencesinfactorsinfluencingtheuseoferehabilitationafterstrokeacrosssectionalcomparisonbetweenbraziliananddutchhealthcareprofessionals