A description of the barriers, facilitators, and experiences of hand therapists in providing remote (tele) rehabilitation: An interpretive description approach

Exploration of the barriers and facilitators influencing use of telehealth for orthotic/prosthetic services in the United States of America: An orthotist/prosthetists perspective

Innovative models of healthcare, such as telehealth, are required to meet the growing demand for orthotic/prosthetic (O&P) services. While O&P users report being very satisfied with telehealth, many clinical facilities have reverted to in-person modes of care as COVID-19 restrictions have eased. As such, there is a disconnect between benefits of telehealth to O&P users, and the clinical services being delivered in-person. The aim of this study was to explore the orthotist/prosthetist's perspective of the barriers and facilitators influencing use of telehealth in the United States of America (USA). O&P practitioners were recruited from across the USA. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used to document practitioner demographics, the services being provided using telehealth, and practitioners' perspective of the barriers and facilitators influencing use of telehealth. Data describing participant demographics and services were summarised. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. 30 practitioners from across the USA participated. Telehealth was used to deliver a range of O&P services including: initial evaluations, routine follow-ups, and delivery of a device in rare circumstances. Barriers to using telehealth included: poor phone/internet connection and lack of access to technology. Facilitators to using telehealth included: a patient-focussed attitude, and recognition of the benefit of telehealth. Telehealth is being used across the entire spectrum of O&P care. Once the significant barriers were resolved, like access to reliable internet/phone reception, telehealth was feasible. An outstanding telehealth experience was facilitated by practitioners who focused on the benefits that telehealth can provide (not the limitations), as well as giving O&P users agency over the choice to use telehealth. There are opportunities to improve access to safe and effective O&P telehealth services by adopting a right-touch approach to practitioner regulation, and advocating for reimbursement that supports better systems and procedures within clinical facilities.

Investigating the Use of Telemedicine by Health Care Providers to Diagnose and Manage Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Access to care is a major challenge for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Telemedicine is one of the solutions to improve access to care. However, initial remote diagnosis of MSKDs involves some challenges, such as the impossibility of touching the patient during the physical examination, which makes it more complex to obtain a valid diagnosis. No meta-analysis has been performed to date to synthesize evidence regarding the initial assessment including a physical evaluation using telemedicine to diagnose patients with MSKDs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to appraise the evidence on diagnostic and treatment plan concordance between remote assessment using synchronous or asynchronous forms of telemedicine and usual in-person assessment for the initial evaluation of various MSKDs.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted up to August 2023 using terms related to telemedicine and assessment of MSKDs. Methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Random-effect model meta-analyses were performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework was used to synthesize the quality and certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 23 concordance studies were eligible and included adult participants (N=1493) with various MSKDs. On the basis of high certainty, pooled κ and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted κ for the diagnostic concordance between remote and in-person assessments of MSKDs were 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.89; 7 studies, 353 patients) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.89; 6 studies, 306 patients). On the basis of moderate certainty, pooled Gwet AC1 for treatment plan concordance between remote and in-person assessments of MSKDs was 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-0.99; 2 studies, 142 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic concordance for MSKDs is good to very good. Treatment plan concordance is probably good to excellent. Studies evaluating the accuracy to detect red and yellow flags as well as the potential increase in associated health care resources use, such as imaging tests, are needed.

Prerequisites and barriers to telerehabilitation in patients with neurological conditions: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

A field of study that uses telerehabilitation (TR) is neurorehabilitation; however, standards for medical and technological applications, medicolegal and ethical regulations, and other aspects of neuro-TR are still being developed.

OBJECTIVE

To address the prerequisites and barriers for implementing TR in neurorehabilitation in the light of present findings.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted based on specific questions about the prerequisites for neuro-TR and barriers to its implication. According to a foreground search strategy in the context of neurorehabilitation using TR in neurological patient population, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched and reviewed.

RESULTS

Barriers and prerequisites for neuro-TR were mostly grouped under the categories of administrative/organizational, human (beneficiaries/providers), technical, and ethical. Apart from the technical framework, knowledge and the presence of an administrative leader responsible for overseeing TR are crucial prerequisites. The internet and technological constraints rank highest among the barriers.

CONCLUSION

Since neuro-TR is relatively new with minimal guidelines and regulations, highly technologic, and lack of established practices, it is imperative to determine and fully comprehend the criteria for its uses. After the prerequisites are established, it is imperative to recognize and address implementation constraints, which may differ depending on the community's infrastructure and neurologic condition.

Virtual goniometric measurement of the forearm, wrist, and hand: A double-blind psychometric study of a digital goniometer

BACKGROUND

Various virtual goniometers have been used for photographic measurements. However, there is no single method that is both reliable and valid for measuring the forearm, wrist, and finger joints.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the criterion validity and intra- and inter-rater reliability of a virtual goniometer for assessing forearm, wrist, and finger joints using screenshots from video recordings and to calculate the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).

STUDY DESIGN

This is a clinical measurement study.

METHODS

Goniometric measurements were performed independently by two observers in 26 healthy participants (49 hands) using a virtual goniometer. Criterion validity was assessed by examining the agreement between virtual and manual goniometer measurements. Reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess agreement between virtual and manual goniometers and interobserver agreement for virtual measurements. The difference between measurements was analyzed using the Student test and Bland-Altman plots. SEM and MDC were both used to determine the error associated with the measurements.

RESULTS

Strong agreement between measurements (ICC = 0.69-0.98) and positive moderate to high correlation (r = 0.52-0.96; p < 0.001) were observed. Bland-Altman plots showed the agreement between the two measurement methods. Intra-rater (ICC = 0.80-0.99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.76-0.99) were high. SEM was low (2°-4°) and MDC ranged from 4°-12°.

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual goniometer proved to be a valid and reliable method for measuring joint angles from screenshots. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the virtual goniometer was high. The average bias between the virtual and manual goniometer was small. Measurement errors were low for forearm, wrist, and hand movements, with the largest measurement errors observed for the second and third fingers.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Digital Health Services for People With Musculoskeletal Conditions in the Primary Health Care Setting: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct.

RESULTS

Overall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (-) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: "digital health characteristics" (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [-], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), "outer setting" (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [-], and external financial incentives [-]), "inner setting" (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and -], information incongruence (-), and support from colleagues [+]), "characteristics of the healthcare professionals" (ie, health care professionals' acceptance [+ and -] and job satisfaction [+ and -]), and the "implementation process" (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [-]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context.

Investigation of the barriers to and functional outcomes of telerehabilitation in patients with hand injury

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation is an approach that is growing in importance and rapidly becoming more prevalent. However, the potential barriers to this approach and its effectiveness relative to face-to-face treatment still need to be determined.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the technology and access barriers, implementation and organizational challenges, and communication barriers faced by patients undergoing postoperative telerehabilitation after hand tendon repair surgery. It also aimed to investigate the effect of telerehabilitation on pain, kinesiophobia, and functional outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, nonrandomized comparative clinical study.

METHODS

The study was conducted with 44 patients who underwent tendon repair surgery due to tendon injuries of the extrinsic muscles of the hand. Participants were divided into two groups (face-to-face group and telerehabilitation group). All participants received three physiotherapy sessions per week for 8 weeks from their surgery (via video conference using mobile phones to the telerehabilitation group). An early passive motion protocol was applied for flexor tendon and zone 5-7 extensor tendon repairs. Mallet finger rehabilitation was performed for zone 2 extensor tendon repairs, while an early active short arc approach was used for zone 3-4 repairs. The telerehabilitation and face-to-face groups received the same treatment protocols three times a week. In the eighth week of treatment (in the 24th session), the Turkish version of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Injury Questionnaire (DASH-T) and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia were administered to all patients. The telerehabilitation group also underwent a barrier questionnaire. A pretreatment assessment could not be conducted. The independent-sample t-test was used for DASH-T data, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia to compare groups.

RESULTS

In the study, there were 24 participants (age: 31.58 ± 12.02 years) in the face-to-face group and 20 participants (age: 39.25 ± 12.72 years) in the telerehabilitation group. The two groups were similar in terms of DASH-T and pain (p = 0.103, effect size = 0.647, and p = 0.086, effect size = 0.652, respectively) in the 8 weeks. However, the telerehabilitation group had a higher fear of movement (p = 0.017, effect size = 3.265). The most common barriers to telerehabilitation practices were the fear of damaging the tendon repair and the need for help during the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined that face-to-face treatment in acute physiotherapy for patients who have undergone tendon repair may be more effective compared to telerehabilitation, as it appears to be less likely to induce kinesiophobia. However, in situations where face-to-face treatment is not possible (such as lockdown), telerehabilitation can also be preferred after at least one in-person session to teach and perform exercises.