Background/Introduction: Early telerehabilitation trials with stroke survivors have shown promising results, but there remains a lack of knowledge of what areas of rehabilitation people with stroke are interested and willing to receive using technology. The purpose of this study was to describe the access to low-cost consumer technologies and willingness to use them to receive rehabilitation services among stroke survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were included in this survey study if they had a stroke, lived in the community, were 19 years of age or older, and able to understand English. Participants completed a study-specific telerehabilitation survey via phone call, mail, in-person, or online. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and survey responses. RESULTS: One hundred two survey responses were returned, representing a 79.1% response rate. The mean age of this urban (67.3%) and rural (32.7%) sample was 67.6 years. The technologies most commonly owned were as follows: televisions (91%), landline telephones (88.0%), and computers (79.0%). A large proportion of the sample reported an interest to receive assessments (58.4%), training and exercise programs (64.0%), and education (61.4%) via telerehabilitation, however, many were not interested to receive telerehabilitation (∼39%) and believed that the quality of care would be less than in-person rehabilitation (71.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of consumer technologies for the delivery of rehabilitation services is both feasible and desirable by stroke survivors. Telerehabilitation services at present should augment and not replace in-person rehabilitation. However, in cases where in-person rehabilitation is neither accessible nor possible, telerehabilitation could serve as an acceptable alternative and is a key area for future research.
Background/Introduction: Early telerehabilitation trials with stroke survivors have shown promising results, but there remains a lack of knowledge of what areas of rehabilitation people with stroke are interested and willing to receive using technology. The purpose of this study was to describe the access to low-cost consumer technologies and willingness to use them to receive rehabilitation services among stroke survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants were included in this survey study if they had a stroke, lived in the community, were 19 years of age or older, and able to understand English. Participants completed a study-specific telerehabilitation survey via phone call, mail, in-person, or online. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and survey responses. RESULTS: One hundred two survey responses were returned, representing a 79.1% response rate. The mean age of this urban (67.3%) and rural (32.7%) sample was 67.6 years. The technologies most commonly owned were as follows: televisions (91%), landline telephones (88.0%), and computers (79.0%). A large proportion of the sample reported an interest to receive assessments (58.4%), training and exercise programs (64.0%), and education (61.4%) via telerehabilitation, however, many were not interested to receive telerehabilitation (∼39%) and believed that the quality of care would be less than in-person rehabilitation (71.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of consumer technologies for the delivery of rehabilitation services is both feasible and desirable by stroke survivors. Telerehabilitation services at present should augment and not replace in-person rehabilitation. However, in cases where in-person rehabilitation is neither accessible nor possible, telerehabilitation could serve as an acceptable alternative and is a key area for future research.
Authors: Viktoria Fruhwirth; Christian Enzinger; Elisabeth Weiss; Andreas Schwerdtfeger; Thomas Gattringer; Daniela Pinter Journal: Wien Med Wochenschr Date: 2019-09-18
Authors: Brodie M Sakakibara; Scott A Lear; Susan I Barr; Oscar Benavente; Charlie H Goldsmith; Noah D Silverberg; Jennifer Yao; Janice J Eng Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Steinunn A Olafsdottir; Helga Jonsdottir; Ingibjörg Bjartmarz; Charlotte Magnusson; Héctor Caltenco; Mikko Kytö; Laura Maye; David McGookin; Solveig Asa Arnadottir; Ingibjörg Hjaltadottir; Thora B Hafsteinsdottir Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Berber Brouns; Leti van Bodegom-Vos; Arend J de Kloet; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Ingrid L C Gil; Lígia M N Souza; Lucia W Braga; Jorit J L Meesters Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: B Brouns; J J L Meesters; M M Wentink; A J de Kloet; H J Arwert; T P M Vliet Vlieland; L W Boyce; L van Bodegom-Vos Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 7.327