| Literature DB >> 26640483 |
Sara Movahedazarhouligh1, Roshanak Vameghi2, Nikta Hatamizadeh3, Enayatollah Bakhshi4, Seyed Muhammad Moosavy Khatat5.
Abstract
Introduction. This study aimed to assess rehabilitation professionals' attitude toward implementation and application of telerehabilitation technology as a novel study in rehabilitation academic centers and affiliated clinics in Tehran. Methods. It was a descriptive cross-sectional study. To collect data, a researcher-designed questionnaire was developed. 141 rehabilitation experts participated in the study. Results. A majority of faculty members (78%) and clinicians (89.7%) either were in "definite agreement" or "somewhat agreed" with implementation and application of this technology, which demonstrates an overall positive attitude. Discussion. Based on the positive attitudes of the majority of participants toward implementation and application of this technology and their preferences in offering different telerehabilitation services, it seems that there is an appropriate and desirable acceptance and administrative culture to implement this technology among rehabilitation experts in Tehran. It is thus expected that implementation and application of this technology will be a promising experience in rehabilitation academic centers and affiliate clinics in Tehran.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26640483 PMCID: PMC4660026 DOI: 10.1155/2015/468560
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Telemed Appl ISSN: 1687-6415
| Category | Questions |
|---|---|
| Possible impacts of telerehabilitation implementation on the experts' own work domain | (i) Benefits of telerehabilitation application in enhancing professional contacts |
|
| |
| Possible impacts of telerehabilitation implementation on their colleagues' work domain | (i) Benefits of telerehabilitation application in professional responsibilities of colleagues |
|
| |
| Possible impacts of telerehabilitation implementation on the treatment procedure and service delivery for the client | (i) Efficacy of telerehabilitation in different rehabilitation specialties |
|
| |
| Possible impacts of telerehabilitation implementation on the national supportive system | (i) Economical advantages and challenges of telerehabilitation application |
Demographic characteristics of the participants.
| Demographic characteristics | Participants | |
|---|---|---|
| Faculty members | Clinicians | |
| % | % | |
| Age | ||
| <30 | 0 | 15.4 |
| 30–40 | 20.7 | 53.8 |
| 40–50 | 34.9 | 20.5 |
| >50 | 44.4 | 10.3 |
| Total |
|
|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 58.7 | 35.9 |
| Female | 41.3 | 64.1 |
| Total |
|
|
| Educational status | ||
| B.A. | 0 | 30.8 |
| M.A. | 27 | 51.3 |
| Ph.D./doctorate | 73 | 17.9 |
| Total |
|
|
| University of employment | ||
| University of Social Welfare and | 55.6 | 74.4 |
| Tehran University of Medical | 4.7 | 13.8 |
| Shahid Beheshti University of | 14.3 | 6.5 |
| Iran University of Medical | 25.4 | 5.3 |
| Total |
|
|
| Working experience (years) | ||
| <5 | 0 | 3.8 |
| 5–10 | 11.1 | 55.1 |
| 10–15 | 30.2 | 29.5 |
| 15–20 | 38.1 | 10.3 |
| >20 | 20.6 | 1.3 |
| Total |
|
|
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their groups.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Groups | ||||||
| Faculty members | 0 | 77.8 | 22.2 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Clinicians | 3.8 | 85.9 | 10.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their age.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| <30 | 8.3 | 83.3 | 8.4 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 30–40 | 3.6 | 81.9 | 14.5 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 40–50 | 0 | 84.2 | 15.8 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| >50 | 0 | 80.6 | 19.4 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their sex.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | ||
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 1.5 | 80 | 18.5 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Female | 2.6 | 84.2 | 15.6 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their educational status.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Educational status (degree) | ||||||
| B.A. | 4.2 | 79.2 | 16.6 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| M.A. | 3.5 | 84.2 | 12.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Ph.D./doctorate | 0 | 88.4 | 11.6 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their university of employment.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| University of employment | ||||||
| USWR | 3.2 | 80.8 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| TUMS | 0 | 92.3 | 7.7 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Sh.B UMS | 0 | 78.6 | 21.4 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| IUMS | 0 | 85 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
University Of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.
Iran University of Medical Sciences.
The distribution of the rehabilitation experts' attitude in terms of their working experiences.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Working experience (years) | ||||||
| <5 | 0 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 5–10 | 4 | 80 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10–15 | 2.4 | 82.9 | 14.7 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 15–20 | 0 | 84.4 | 15.6 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| >20 | 0 | 85.7 | 14.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Distribution of the respondents' total attitude towards the implementation and application of telerehabilitation technology in terms of specialty.
| Attitude | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definitely agree | Somewhat agree | Have no idea | Somewhat disagree | Definitely disagree | Total | |
| % | % | % | % | % | ||
| Specialty | ||||||
| Physical therapist | 0 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Occupational therapist | 2.9 | 79.5 | 17.6 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Audiometer | 0 | 90.9 | 9.1 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Optometrist | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Speech therapist | 13.4 | 53.3 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Rehabilitation consultant | 0 | 83.3 | 16.7 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Ergonomist | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Orthotists | 0 | 62.5 | 37.5 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Nurse | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Other specialties | 2.1 | 91.65 | 6.25 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Distribution of respondents' positive attitude towards implementation of different telerehabilitation services in terms of specialty.
| Telerehabilitation service | Specialty | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical therapist (%) | Occupational therapist (%) | Audiologist (%) | Optometrist (%) | Speech therapist (%) | Rehabilitation consultant (%) | Ergonomist (%) | Orthotists (%) | Nurse (%) | Other specialties (%) | |
| Tele-expert consultations | 100 | 24.1 | 90.1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Teleconferences | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Tele-follow-ups | 75 | 73.2 | 72.7 | 62 | 60 | 83.4 | 100 | 25 | 80 | 79.1 |
| Tele-patient referrals | 95.7 | 91.1 | 7.8 | 100 | 93.4 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 100 | 100 |
| Tele-patient assessment | 58.3 | 52.9 | 45.5 | 50 | 46.6 | 66.7 | 100 | 12.5 | 60 | 80 |
| Telemonitoring | 66.7 | 64.7 | 63.6 | 62.5 | 16.6 | 66.7 | 100 | 12.5 | 80 | 80 |
| Teleevaluation | 45.8 | 60 | 45.5 | 50 | 40.7 | 33.3 | 50 | 12.5 | 60 | 47.9 |
| Tele-patient consultation | 100 | 91.2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |