‘Well, if the kids can do it, I can do it’: older rehabilitation patients' experiences of telerehabilitation

Abstract

Background and objectiveAlthough trials continue to emerge supporting the role of telerehabilitation, implementation has been slow. Key users include older people living with disabilities who are frequent users of hospital rehabilitation services but whose voices are rarely heard. It is unclear whether the use of technologies and reduced face‐to‐face contact is acceptable to these people. We report on a qualitative study of community dwelling participants who had received a home telerehabilitation programme as an alternative to conventional rehabilitation.DesignThirteen older participants, three spouses and one carer were interviewed. All had participated in an individualized therapy programme, using a combination of face‐to‐face and video consults with therapists. The programme used ‘off‐the‐shelf’ technologies including iPads for videoconferencing and electronic FitBitR devices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo software.ResultsThematic analysis resulted in five emergent themes: (i) telerehabilitation is convenient; (ii) telerehabilitation promotes motivation and self‐awareness; (iii) telerehabilitation fosters positive therapeutic relationships; (iv) mastering technologies used by younger relatives is a valued aspect of telerehabilitation; and (v) Telerehabilitation does not replace traditional face‐to‐face rehabilitation therapies.ConclusionsParticipants found telerehabilitation convenient and motivating, coped well with the technology and developed positive therapeutic relationships. The learning and practice aspects sat well in the context of a rehabilitation programme. The use of commercially available technologies may have contributed to respondents' high levels of acceptability. The perception of telerehabilitation as complementary to in‐person care and the expectation of technological support have implications for the implementation and delivery of telerehabilitation services to older people.

The development, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of an online aphasia group intervention – TeleGAIN

“…Participants of TeleGAIN noted additional benefits such as feeling more confident and relaxed interacting online, being more comfortable in the home environment and being better able to manage fatigue in the context of reduced travel time. Such reports are consistent with telerehabilitation literature considering the patient perspective (Kairy et al, 2013;Shulver, Killington, Morris, & Crotty, 2016;Steel, Cox, & Garry, 2011) and demonstrates the potential for telerehabilitation to provide additional insession benefits that face-to-face interactions may not. This is also reflected in the participant responses to the satisfaction survey where all participants reported feeling comfortable receiving therapy online, and the majority responded positively to whether therapy at home was easier than face-to-face and that they saved travel time.…”

An exploration of usability issues in telecare monitoring systems and possible solutions: a systematic literature review

“…These studies are as follows: 2014 [45,47], 2013 [44,50], 2012 [42,51], and 2011 [41]. We also found one study published in 2017 [48], 2016 [49], 2008 [43] and 2000 [52]. Table 2.…”

“…The results show that the most discussed characteristics of ISO 9126-1 in evaluating the usability of telecare monitoring systems were understandability, which appeared in 9 studies [40][41][42][43][46][47][48]50,51], and attractiveness, which appeared in six studies [40,42,46,[48][49][50]. Moreover, in the ISO 9241-11 model, the usability characteristic of satisfaction was the most discussed, appearing in seven studies [40,[43][44][45][46][47]52], followed by efficiency, which was discussed in four studies [40,46,50,51].…”

“…From fifteen unique publication sources (journals and conferences), we found 16 papers relevant to this study. We found 10 journal papers [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] and five conference papers [49][50][51][52][53]. The selected papers were published in journals that had different focuses of research.…”

“…Based on the topics covered by these journals, we divided these journals and the corresponding studies into four main categories: informatics, nursing, technology and health. Four studies were published in journals with a focus on informatics [39][40][41], two in nursing journals [42,43], four in technology journals [44][45][46][47], and one study in a health journal [48]. Of the conference papers, three studies were published in conferences with a focus on technology [49,50,52], one on health [51] and one on informatics [53].…”