What is Important in E-health Interventions for Stroke Rehabilitation? A Survey Study among Patients, Informal Caregivers, and Health Professionals.

Authors

  • Manon M. Wentink Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Nutrition and Sports, The Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University for Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Leti van Bodegom-Vos Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, section Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands;
  • Berber Brouns Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Nutrition and Sports, The Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands;
  • Henk J. Arwert Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands;
  • Thea P.M. Vliet Vlieland Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands; Rijnlands Rehabilitation Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Arend J. de Kloet Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Nutrition and Sports, The Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands;
  • Jorit J. L. Meesters Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Sophia Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands;

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2018.6247

Abstract

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.

 

  

References

Blacquiere, D., Lindsay, M. P., Foley, N., Taralson, C., Alcock, S., Balg, C., .... Ghanem, A. (2017). Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Telestroke best practice guidelines update 2017. International Journal of Stroke, 12, 886-895.

Brewer, B. R., 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, 22-44. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1310/tsr1406-22

Casaubon, L. K., Boulanger, J. M., Blacquiere, D., Boucher, S., Brown, K., Goddard, T., ... Lavoie, P. (2015). Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Hyperacute stroke care guidelines, update 2015. International Journal of Stroke, 10, 924-940. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26148019

Ehn, M., Hansson, P., Sjölinder, M., Boman, I. L., Folke, M., Sommerfeld, D., ... Palmcrantz, S. (2015). Users perspectives on interactive distance technology enabling home-based motor training for stroke patients. pHealth, 2015(5),145-152.

Feigin, V. L., Roth, G. A., Naghavi, M., Parmar, P., Krishnamurthi, R., Chugh, S., ... Estep, K. (2016). Global burden of stroke and risk factors in 188 countries, during 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet Neurology, 15, 913-924. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(16)30073-4/fulltext

Goldstein, D. H., Phelan, R., Wilson, R., Ross-White, A., VanDenKerkhof, E. G., Penning, J. P., & Jaeger, M. (2014). Brief review: Adoption of electronic medical records to enhance acute pain management. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie, 61, 164-179. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24233770

Hochstenbach-Waelen, A., & Seelen, H. A. (2012). Embracing change: Practical and theoretical considerations for successful implementation of technology assisting upper limb training in stroke. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 9(1), 52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-52

Lange, B., Flynn, S., Proffitt, R., Chang, C. Y., & Rizzo, A. (2010). Development of an interactive game-based rehabilitation tool for dynamic balance training. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 17, 345-352. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131259

Lu, E.C., Wang, R.H., Hebert, D., Boger, J., Galea, M.P., & Mihailidis, A. (2011). The development of an upper limb stroke rehabilitation robot: identification of clinical practices and design requirements through a survey of therapists. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6, 420-431. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21184626

Lum, P., Reinkensmeyer, D., Mahoney, R., Rymer, W.Z., & Burgar, C. (2002). Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: Current status and challenges to clinical acceptance. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 8, 40-53. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14523729

Matthew-Maich, N., Harris, L., Ploeg, J., Markle-Reid, M., Valaitis, R., Ibrahim, S., ... Isaacs, S. (2016). Designing, implementing, and evaluating mobile health technologies for managing chronic conditions in older adults: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, mHealth and uHealth, 4(2). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27282195

Mawson, S., Nasr, N., Parker, J., Zheng, H., Davies, R., & Mountain, G. (2014). Developing a personalised self-management system for post stroke rehabilitation; utilising a user-centred design methodology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9, 521-528. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24131371

McKevitt, C., Redfern, J., Mold, F., & Wolfe, C. (2004). Qualitative studies of stroke: A systematic review. Stroke, 35, 1499-1505. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105517

Mountain, G. W. P. M., Ware, P., Hammerton, J., Mawson, S., Zheng, H., Davies, R., ... Eccleston, C. (2006). The SMART project: A user led approach to developing applications for domiciliary stroke rehabilitation. Designing Accessible Technology, 135-144. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/6402/

Murray, J., Ashworth, R., Forster, A., & Young, J. (2003). Developing a primary care-based stroke service: A review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 137-142. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12817361

Nasr, N., Leon, B., Mountain, G., Nijenhuis, S. M., Prange, G., Sale, P., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2016). The experience of living with stroke and using technology: Opportunities to engage and co-design with end users. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11, 653-660. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879304

Pagliari, C. (2007). Design and evaluation in eHealth: Challenges and implications for an interdisciplinary field. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(2). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913937/

Parke, H. L., Epiphaniou, E., Pearce, G., Taylor, S. J., Sheikh, A., Griffiths, C. J., ... Pinnock, H. (2015). Self-management support interventions for stroke survivors: a systematic meta-review. PLoS One, 10(7), e0131448. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26204266

Parker, J., Mawson, S., Mountain, G., Nasr, N., Davies, R., & Zheng, H. (2014). The provision of feedback through computer-based technology to promote self-managed post-stroke rehabilitation in the home. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9, 529-538. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24131369

Peoples, H., Satink, T., & Steultjens, E. (2011). Stroke survivors' experiences of rehabilitation: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 18, 163-171. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20701431

Reed, M. C., Wood, V., Harrington, R., & Paterson, J. (2012). Developing stroke rehabilitation and community services: A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(7), 553-563. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21985186

Ross, J., Stevenson, F., Lau, R., & Murray, E. (2016). Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: A systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implementation Science, 11(1), 146. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27782832

Salter, K., Hellings, C., Foley, N., & Teasell, R. (2008). The experience of living with stroke: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 595-602. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19020691

Sivan, M., Gallagher, J., Holt, R., Weightman, A., Levesley, M., & Bhakta, B. (2014). Investigating the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) framework to capture user needs in the concept stage of rehabilitation technology development. Assistive Technology, 26, 164-173. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131797

Truelsen, T., Piechowski‐Jóźwiak, B., Bonita, R., Mathers, C., Bogousslavsky, J., & Boysen, G. (2006). Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: A review of available data. European journal of Neurology, 13, 581-598. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796582

van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S.M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011). A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155738

Wentzel, M.J., Beerlage-de Jong, N., Sieverin,K.F., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.W.C. (2014). Slimmer e-health ontwikkelen en implementeren met de CeHRes Roadmap. In: C Politiek & R Hoogendijk (Eds.), CO-CREATIE E-HEALTHBOEK e-health, technisch kunstje of pure veranderkunde? https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/ehealth/documents/workshop-2014/eHealth-Research_in_Beeld.pdf

Winstein, C.J., Stein, J., Arena, R., Bates, B., Cherney, L. R., Cramer, S.C., ... Lang, C.E. (2016). Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery. Stroke, 47(6), e98-e169

Zheng, H., Davies, R., Zhou, H., Hammerton, J., Mawson, S. J., Ware, P., ... Mountain, G. A. (2006). SMART project: Application of emerging information and communication technology to home-based rehabilitation for stroke patients. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 5, 271-276. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.4063&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Downloads

Published

2018-08-03

How to Cite

Wentink, M. M., Bodegom-Vos, L. van, Brouns, B., Arwert, H. J., Vliet Vlieland, T. P., de Kloet, A. J., & Meesters, J. J. L. (2018). What is Important in E-health Interventions for Stroke Rehabilitation? A Survey Study among Patients, Informal Caregivers, and Health Professionals. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 10(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2018.6247

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2018)

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.