Wheelchair Seating Assessment and Intervention: A Comparison between Telerehabilitation and Face-to-Face Service

Authors

  • Ingrid G Barlow Glenrose Rehabiliation Hospital
  • Lili Liu University of Alberta
  • Angela Sekulic University of Alberta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2009.868

Abstract

This study compared outcomes of wheelchair seating and positioning interventions provided by telerehabilitation (n=10) and face-to-face (n=20; 10 in each of two comparison groups, one urban and one rural). Comparison clients were matched to the telerehabilitation clients in age, diagnosis, and type of seating components received. Clients and referring therapists rated their satisfaction and identified if seating intervention goals were met. Clients recorded travel expenses incurred or saved, and all therapists recorded time spent providing service. Wait times and completion times were tracked. Clients seen by telerehabilitation had similar satisfaction ratings and were as likely to have their goals met as clients seen face-to-face; telerehabilitation clients saved travel costs. Rural referring therapists who used telerehabilitation spent more time in preparation and follow-up than the other groups. Clients assessed by telerehabilitation had shorter wait times for assessment than rural face-to-face clients, but their interventions took as long to complete.

Keywords: Telerehabilitation, Telehealth, Videoconferencing, Wheelchair Seating, Outcomes, Rehabilitation

  

Author Biographies

Ingrid G Barlow, Glenrose Rehabiliation Hospital

Occupational Therapist/Clinical Researcher

Lili Liu, University of Alberta

Professor and Chair, Department of Occupational Therapy

Angela Sekulic, University of Alberta

MSc (Rehabilitation Science) student Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine

References

AlbertaGasPrices.com, Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Alberta Aids to Daily Living-AADL. Service standards for Alberta Aids to Daily Living (AADL) Program. Retrieved 16 June, 2008, from http://www.seniors.gov.ab.ca/aadl/av/manual/PDF/73a_seating_services_standards.pdf

Alberta Telehealth Business Plan 2006-2009. (2006). http://www.albertatelehealth.com/content.asp?category_id=2

Allegretti, A. L. C., Fitzgerald, S. G., Boninger, M. L., Cooper, R. A., Cohen, L., & Shapcott, N. (2003). Pelvic positioning evaluation for wheelchair selection: A comparison between in-person and videoconferencing. RESNA 26th Annual International Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.

Aoki, N., Dunn, K., Johnson-Throop, K. A., & Turley, J. P. (2003). Outcomes and methods in telemedicine evaluation. Telemedicine Journal & E-Health, 9(4), 393-401.

Broens, T. H., Huis in’t Veld, R. M., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. M., Hermens, H. J., van Halteren, A. T., & Nieuwenhuis, L. J. (2007). Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: A literature study. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 13(6), 303-309.

Bursick, T. M., Trefler, E., Fitzgerald, S., & Joseph, R. (2000). Wheelchair seating and positioning outcomes in the elderly nursing home population. RESNA 2000 Annual Conference Proceedings, 316-318.

Cooper, R., Fitzgerald, S., Boninger, M., Cooper, R. A., Shapcott, N., Cohen, L., et al. (2002). Using telerehabilitation to aid in selecting a wheelchair. RESNA, 2002 Annual Conference Proceedings, 327-329.

Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview of recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105.

Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D. L., & Wolfson, C. (2002). Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with Multiple Sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1-3), 21-30.

Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8(1), 3-13.

Grigsby, J., & Bennett, R. E. (2006). Alternatives to randomized controlled trials in telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 12(Suppl 2), S77-84.

Hailey, D. (2001). Some successes and limitations with telehealth in Canada. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 7(Suppl 2), 73-75.

Hailey, D., Ohinmaa, A., & Roine, R. (2004). Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 10(6), 318-324.

Hassall, S., Wootton, R., & Guilfoyle, C. (2003). The cost of allied health assessments delivered by videoconference to a residential facility for elderly people. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 9(4), 234-237.

Hjelm, N. M. (2005). Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 11(2), 60-70.

Hughes, G., Hudgins, B., Hooper, J. E., & Wallace, B. (2003). User satisfaction with rehabilitation services delivered using Internet video. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9(3), 180-183.

Jennett, P., Affleck-Hall, L., Hailey, D., Ohinmaa, A, Anderson, C. Thomas R. et al (2003). The socio-economic impact of telehealth: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9(6), 311-320.

Khoja, S., Casebeer, A., & Young, S. (2005). Role of telehealth in seating clinics: A case study of learners’ perspectives. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 11(3), 146-149.

Lemaire, E. D., Boudrias, Y., & Greene, G. (2001). Low-bandwidth, internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 7(2), 82-89.

Malagodi, M., Schmeler, M. R., Shapcott, N. G., & Pelleschi, T. (1998). The use of telemedicine in assistive technology service delivery: Results of a pilot study. Technology Special Interest Section Quarterly, 8(1), 1-4.

Malagodi, M., & Smith, S. (1999). Prospective role for telemedicine as a communication tool for rural rehabilitation practice. Work, 12, 245-259.

Miller, E. A. (2007). Solving the disjuncture between research and practice: Telehealth trends in the 21st century. Health Policy, 82(2), 133-141.

National Initiative for Telehealth Framework (NIFTE). (2003). http:www.ehealthstrategies.com/files/telemed_canada_guide.pdf

Nesbitt, T. S., Cole, S. L., Pellegrino, L., & Keast, P. (2006). Rural outreach in home telehealth: Assessing challenges and reviewing successes. Telemedicine Journal & E-Health, 12(2), 107-113.

Nesbitt, T. S., Marcin, J. P., Daschbach, M. M., & Cole, S. L. (2005). Perceptions of local health care quality in 7 rural communities with telemedicine. Journal of Rural Health, 21(1), 79-85.

Ohinmaa, A., & Scott, R. (2006). A costing model for videoconferencing in Alberta. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 12(7), 363-369.

Reimer, L. (2006). Telerehabilitation: Occupational therapy beyond borders. Occupational Therapy Now, 8(1), 5-7.

Russell, T. G. (2007). Physical rehabilitation using telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 13(5), 217-220.

Schaafsma, J., Pantazi, S. V., Moehr, J. R., Anglin, C. R., & Grimm, N. A. (2007). An economic evaluation of a telehealth network in British Columbia. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 13(5), 251-256.

Scott, R. E., McCarthy, F. G., Jennett, P. A., Perverseff, T., Lorenzetti, D., Saeed, A., et al. (2007). Telehealth outcomes: A synthesis of the literature and recommendations for outcome indicators. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 13(Suppl 2), 1-38.

Stalfors, J., Bjorholt, I., & Westin, T. (2005). A cost analysis of participation via personal attendance versus telemedicine at a head and neck oncology multidisciplinary team meeting. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 11(4), 205-210.

Weiss-Lambrou, R., Tremblay, C., LeBlanc, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Wheelchair seating aids: How satisfied are consumers? Assistive Technology, 11(1), 43-53.

Whetton, S. (2005). Successes and failures: What are we measuring. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 11(Supplement 2), 98-100.

Whitten, P., Johannessen, L. K., Soerensen, T., Gammon, D., & Mackert, M. (2007). A systematic review of research methodology in telemedicine studies. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 13(5), 230-235.

Downloads

Published

2009-09-04

How to Cite

Barlow, I. G., Liu, L., & Sekulic, A. (2009). Wheelchair Seating Assessment and Intervention: A Comparison between Telerehabilitation and Face-to-Face Service. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 1(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2009.868

Issue

Vol.1, No.1, Fall 2009

Section

Research

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.