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 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.

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

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

What works and why in the implementation of eRehabilitation after stroke - a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) - including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education - after stroke resulted in health-related improvements. This study investigated what worked and why in the implementation. METHODS: Implementation activities (information provision, integration of Fast@home, instruction and motivation) were performed for 14 months and evaluated, using the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations which consists of three evaluation domains (implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors). Implementation activities were evaluated by field notes/surveys/user data, it's mechanisms of impact by surveys and contextual factors by field notes/interviews among 11 professionals. Surveys were conducted among 51 professionals and 73 patients. User data (n = 165 patients) were extracted from the eRehabilitation applications. RESULTS: Implementation activities were executed as planned. Of the professionals trained to deliver the intervention (33 of 51), 25 (75.8%) delivered it. Of the 165 patients, 82 (49.7%) were registered for Fast@home, with 54 patient (65.8%) using it. Mechanisms of impact showed that professionals and patients were equally satisfied with implementation activities (median score 7.0 [IQR 6.0-7.75] versus 7.0 [6.0-7.5]), but patients were more satisfied with the intervention (8.0 [IQR 7.0-8.0] versus 5.5 [4.0-7.0]). Guidance by professionals was seen as most impactful for implementation by patients and support of clinical champions and time given for training by professionals. Professionals rated the integration of Fast@home as insufficient. Contextual factors (financial cutbacks and technical setbacks) hampered the implementation. CONCLUSION: Main improvements of the implementation of eRehabilitation are related to professionals' perceptions of the intervention, integration of eRehabilitation and contextual factors.Implication for rehabilitationTo increase the use of eRehabilitation by patients, patients should be supported by their healthcare professional in their first time use and during the rehabilitation process.To increase the use of eRehabilitation by healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals should be (1) supported by a clinical champion and (2) provided with sufficient time for learning to work and getting familiar with the eRehabilitation program.Integration of eRehabilitation in conventional stroke rehabilitation (optimal blended care) is an important challenge and a prerequisite for the implementation of eRehabilitation in the clinical setting.

Effect of a comprehensive eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation on disability and health-related quality of life: A pre-post comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke. METHODS: Pre-post design. The intervention comprised cognitive (Braingymmer®) and physical (Telerevalidatie®/Physitrack®) exercises, activity-tracking (Activ8®) and psycho-education. Assessments were made at admission (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). The primary outcome concerned disability (Stroke Impact Scale; SIS). Secondary outcomes were: health-related quality of life, fatigue, self-management, participation and physical activity. Changes in scores between T0-T3, T3-T6, and T0-T6 were compared by analysis of variance and linear mixed models. RESULTS: The study included 153 and 165 people with stroke in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 82 (50%) people received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. Between T3 and T6, the change in scores for the SIS subscales Communication (control group/intervention group -1.7/-0.3) and Physical strength (-5.7/3.3) were significantly greater in the total intervention group (all mean differences< minimally clinically important differences). No significant differences were found for other SIS subscales or secondary outcomes, or between T0-T3 and T0-T6. CONCLUSION: eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only.

Factors associated with willingness to use eRehabilitation after stroke: A cross-sectional study among patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing availability of eRehabilitation, its use remains limited. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with willingness to use eRehabilitation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: Stroke patients, informal caregivers, health-care professionals. METHODS: The survey included personal characteristics, willingness to use eRehabilitation (yes/no) and barri-ers/facilitators influencing this willingness (4-point scale). Barriers/facilitators were merged into factors. The association between these factors and willingness to use eRehabilitation was assessed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 125 patients, 43 informal caregivers and 105 healthcare professionals participated in the study. Willingness to use eRehabilitation was positively influenced by perceived patient benefits (e.g. reduced travel time, increased motivation, better outcomes), among patients (odds ratio (OR) 2.68; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.34-5.33), informal caregivers (OR 8.98; 95% CI 1.70-47.33) and healthcare professionals (OR 6.25; 95% CI 1.17-10.48). Insufficient knowledge decreased willingness to use eRehabilitation among pa-tients (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.74). Limitations of the study include low response rates and possible response bias. CONCLUSION: Differences were found between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals. Ho-wever, for both groups, perceived benefits of the use of eRehabilitation facilitated willingness to use eRehabili-tation. Further research is needed to determine the benefits of such programs, and inform all users about the potential benefits, and how to use eRehabilitation.

What is Important in E-health Interventions for Stroke Rehabilitation? A Survey Study among Patients, Informal Caregivers and Health Professionals.

Incorporating user requirements in the design of e-rehabilitation interventions facilitates their implementation. However, insight into requirements for e-rehabilitation after stroke is lacking. This study investigated which user requirements for stroke e-rehabilitation are important to stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals. The methodology consisted of a survey study amongst stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals (physicians, physical therapists and occupational therapists). The survey consisted of statements about requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content of a comprehensive stroke e-health intervention (4-point Likert scale, 1=unimportant/4=important). The mean with standard deviation was the metric used to determine the importance of requirements. Patients (N=125), informal caregivers (N=43), and health professionals (N=105) completed the survey. The mean score of user requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content for stroke e-rehabilitation was 3.1 for patients, 3.4 for informal caregivers and 3.4 for health professionals. Data showed that a large number of user requirements are important and should be incorporated into the design of stroke e-rehabilitation to facilitate their implementation.