Telerehabilitation Technologies: Accessibility and Usability

  • Michael Pramuka University of Pittsburgh
  • Linda van Roosmalen University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

In the fields of telehealth and telemedicine, phone and/or video technologies are key to the successful provision of services such as remote monitoring and visits. How do these technologies affect service accessibility, effectiveness, quality, and usefulness when applied to rehabilitation services in the field of telerehabilitation? To answer this question, we provide a overview of the complex network of available technologies and discuss how they link to rehabilitation applications, services, and practices as well as to the telerehabilitation end-user.

This white paper will first present the numerous professional considerations that shape the use of technology in rehabilitation service and set it somewhat apart from telemedicine. It will then provide an overview of concepts essential to usability analysis; present a summary of various telerehabilitation technologies and their strengths and limitations, and consider how the technologies interface with end users’ clinical needs for service accessibility, effectiveness, quality, and usefulness. The paper will highlight a conceptual framework (including task analyses and usability issues) that underlies a functional match between telerehabilitation technologies, clinical applications, and end-usercapabilities for telerehabilitation purposes. Finally, we will discuss pragmatic issues related to user integration of telerehabilitation technology versus traditional face-to-face approaches.

Key Words: Remote, Technology, Usability, Accessibility, Decision Factors, Decision Support.

  

Author Biographies

Michael Pramuka, University of Pittsburgh
Associate Professor, Department of Communication Science and Disorders; Associate Dean for Instructional Development, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences
Linda van Roosmalen, University of Pittsburgh
Linda van Roosmalen, PhD, IDSA is an Assistant Professor of Rehabilitation Science & Technology in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh

References

Bashshur, R.L. (2002). Telemedicine and health care. Telemedicine Journal and e-health, 8(1), 5-12.

Benedixen, R.M., Levy, C., Lutz, B.J., Horn, K.R., Chronister, K., & Mann, W.C. (2008). A telerehabilitation model for victims of polytrauma. Rehabilitation Nursing, 33(5), 215-220.

Brennan, D.M., & Barkder, L. (2008). Human factors in the development and implementation of telerehabilitation systems. Journal of Telemedicine and Telerate, 14, 55-58.

Brewer, B., McDowell, S.K., Worthen-Chaudhari, L.C., (2007). Poststroke upper extremity rehabilitation: a review of robotic systems and clinical results. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 14(6) 22-44.

Carnigan, C.R., & Krebs, H.I. (2006). Telerehabilitation robotics: bright lights, big future? Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43(5), 695-710.

Darkins, A., Cruise, C., Armstrong, M., Pters, J., & Finn, M. (2008). Enhancing access of combat-wounded veterans to specialist rehabilitation services: the VA polytrauma telehealth network. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 89, 182 - 187.

Diamond, B.J., Shreve, G.M., Bonilla, J.M., Johnston, M.V., Morodan, J., & Branneck, R. (2003). Telerehabilitation, cognition, and user-accessibility. NeuroRehabilitation, 18, 171-177.

Girard, P. (2007). Military and VA telemedicine systems for patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(7), 1-10.

Koocher, G.P. (2007). Twenty-first century ethical challenges for psychology. American Psychologist, 62(5), 375-384.

Lorig, K., Ritter, P.L, Laurent, D.D., & Plant, K. (2006). Internet-based chronic disease self-management: a randomized trial. Medical Care, 44(11), 964-971.

Rosen, E. Twenty minutes in the life of a tele-home healthcare nurse. (2001). Telemedicine Today. [cited 2004 June 9].

Story M.F. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assistive Technology 10, No. 1 (1988): 4-12.

Theodorus, D., & Russell, T. (2008). Telerehabilitation: current perspectives. Studies in Health Technology & Informatics, 131, 191-208.

Tula, B., Chatterjee, S., & Laxminarayan, S. (2005). A taxonomy of telemedicine efforts with respect to applications, infrastructure, delivery tools, type of setting, and purpose. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005.

Winters, J.M. (2002) Telerehabilitation research: Emerging opportunities. Annual review of Biomedical Engineering, 4, 287-320.

Published
2015-03-16
How to Cite
Pramuka, M., & van Roosmalen, L. (2015). Telerehabilitation Technologies: Accessibility and Usability. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2008.702
Section
White Papers: State-of-the-Science