Clinician experiences with using assistive technology in brain injury rehabilitation: a survey of clinician capability, attitudes, and barriers

What attributes of digital devices are important to clinicians in rehabilitation? A cross-cultural best-worst scaling study

BACKGROUND

Digital interventions are becoming increasingly popular in rehabilitation. Understanding of device features which impact clinician adoption and satisfaction is limited. Research in the field should be conducted across diverse settings to ensure digital interventions do not exacerbate healthcare inequities.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand rehabilitation clinicians' preferences regarding device attributes and included a cross-cultural comparison.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Choice experiment methodology (best-worst scaling) was used to survey rehabilitation clinicians across Australia and Brazil. Participants completed 10 best-worst questions, choosing the most and least important device attributes from subsets of 31 attributes in a partially balanced block design. Results were analysed using multinomial models by country and latent class. Attribute preference scores (PS) were scaled to 0-100 (least to most important).

RESULTS

A total of 122 clinicians from Brazil and 104 clinicians from Australia completed the survey. Most respondents were physiotherapists (83%) working with neurological populations (51%) in the private/self-employed sector (51%) who had experience using rehabilitation devices (87%). Despite preference heterogeneity across country and work sector (public/not-for-profit versus private/self-employed/other), clinicians consistently prioritised patient outcomes (PS 100.0, 95%CI: 86.2-100.0), patient engagement (PS 93.9, 95%CI: 80.6-94.2), usability (PS 81.3, 95%CI: 68.8-82.5), research evidence (PS 80.4, 95%CI: 68.1-81.7) and risk (PS 75.7, 95%CI: 63.8-77.3). In Australia, clinicians favoured device attributes which facilitate increased therapy dosage (PS 79.2, 95%CI: 62.6-81.1) and encourage patient independent practice (PS 66.8, 95%CI: 52.0-69.2). In Brazil, clinicians preferred attributes enabling device use for providing clinical data (PS 67.6, 95%CI: 51.8-70.9) and conducting clinical assessments (PS 65.6, 95%CI: 50.2-68.8).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians prioritise patients' needs and practical application over technical aspects of digital rehabilitation devices. Contextual factors shape clinician preferences rather than individual clinician characteristics. Future device design and research should consider preferences and influences, involving diverse stakeholders to account for context-driven variations across cultures and healthcare settings.

Clinicians' perspectives and usage of rehabilitation technology: a survey

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate clinicians' perspectives regarding their usage of rehabilitation technology in their day-to-day practice and uncover the factors that impact clinicians' use of rehabilitation technology in their daily practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey was used to gather cross-sectional data from American occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, physical therapists, physical therapy assistants, and speech language pathologists. This survey used Likert-scale, multiple choice, and free-response questions.

RESULTS

Approximately half (n = 56/105, 53.3%) of our clinicians reported using rehabilitation in their daily practice. Less than 20% (n = 18/105, 17.1%) of the respondents strongly agreed that they felt comfortable implementing new rehabilitation technology, and few reported that their workplace encouraged (n = 16/85, 18.8%) or strongly encouraged (n = 14/85, 16.5%) the use of rehabilitation technology in practice. Additionally, excluding the 2011-2020 graduate clinicians that reported that they had not learned about rehabilitation technology in school or fieldwork, few reported feeling prepared (n = 14/97, 14.4%) or very prepared (n = 4/97, 4.1%) to use rehabilitation technology after graduation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings have revealed a sizable knowledge-to-practice gap in regard to clinicians' preparedness to engage with and advocate for rehabilitation technology in their day-to-day practice.

Implementation of activities of daily living retraining for individuals in post-traumatic amnesia

Background Despite evidence of the efficacy of activities of daily living (ADL) retraining during post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) following traumatic brain injury (TBI), utilisation of this intervention in practice is unclear. Utilising an implementation science framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, this study explored efforts to translate ADL retraining during PTA into the clinical practice of occupational therapists (OTs) working in TBI rehabilitation settings across Australia. Methods Participants were 44 OTs who attended a day-long training workshop that included knowledge and skill-based content regarding ADL retraining during PTA. Baseline and post-training ratings were completed including evaluation of workshop utility, and skill and knowledge-based competencies relevant to the intervention. Approximately 2 years later, nine trained OTs and two administrators were interviewed to explore the results of implementing the intervention. Results Overall, the training workshop was rated as being helpful and OT ratings of confidence (P  P   Conclusion Multiple barriers were identified in implementation of ADL retraining during PTA and require consideration to facilitate translation and promote best practice.