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.

Toepasbaarheid van een meetmethode om de mate van dagelijkse beweging van kinderen met een verstandelijke beperking te bepalen

Het doel van dit praktijkonderzoek was het bepalen van de toepasbaarheid van de Actigraph om de mate van dagelijkse beweging van kinderen met een verstandelijke beperking te bepalen. De Actigraph bleek goed toepasbaar te zijn

Effect of a comprehensive erehabilitation intervention alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation on disability and healthrelated quality of life: A pre post comparison

Digital eRehabilitation, including cognitive/physical exercises, activity-Tracking and psycho-education, is available for rehabilitation after stroke. In daily practice, these are used in parallel, and evidence regarding the effect of combining applications is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of eRehabilitation in clinical practice. Outcomes for 153 people with stroke admitted to conventional rehabilitation only (control group) were compared with the outcomes for 165 people with stroke admitted when eRehabilitation was available (intervention group). A total of 82 people in the intervention group (50%) received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. In the first 3 months of rehabilitation, no differences were found between the groups. Between 3 and 6 months, the intervention group as a whole showed greater improvements regarding communication and physical strength. However, differences were below minimal clinical importance. In conclusion, adding eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only

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

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. Lay Abstract The use of digital eRehabilitation after stroke (e.g. in serious games, e-consultation and education) is increasing. However, the use of eRehabilitation in daily practice is limited. As a first step in increasing the use of eRehabilitation in stroke care, this study examined which factors influence the willingness of stroke patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals to use eRehabilitation. Beliefs about the benefits of eRehabilitation were found to have the largest positive impact on willingness to use eRehabilitation. These benefits included reduced travel time, increased adherence to therapy or motivation, and better health outcomes. The willingness to use eRehabilitation is limited by a lack of knowledge about how to use eRehabilitation

Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult: A focus group study in the Netherlands

The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. A qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol. Results Thirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care). Although there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-

How to improve eRehabilitation programs in stroke care?: A focus group study to identify requirements of end-users

Background: A user-centered design approach for eHealth interventions improves their effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation. Nevertheless, insight into requirements of end-users (patients/informal caregivers and/or health professionals) for eRehabilitation is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify end-user requirements for a comprehensive eHealth program in stroke rehabilitation. Methods: Eight focus groups were conducted to identify user requirements; six with patients/informal caregivers and two with health professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, team coordinators, speech therapist). The focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Direct content analysis was used to identify the end-user requirements for stroke eHealth interventions concerning three categories: accessibility, usability and content. Results: In total, 45 requirements for the accessibility, usability and content of a stroke eRehabilitation program emerged from the focus groups. Most requirements concerned content (27 requirements), followed by usability (12 requirements) and accessibility (6 requirements). Patients/informal caregivers and health professionals each identified 37 requirements, respectively, with 29 of them overlapping. Conclusions: Requirements between stroke patients/informal caregivers and health professionals differed on several aspects. Therefore, involving the perspectives of all end users in the design process of stroke eRehabilitation programs is needed to achieve a user-centered design