TY - JOUR
T1 - Article factors affecting the delivery and acceptability of the rowtate telehealth vocational rehabilitation intervention for traumatic injury survivors
T2 - A mixed-methods study
AU - Kettlewell, Jade
AU - Lindley, Rebecca
AU - Radford, Kate
AU - Patel, Priya
AU - Bridger, Kay
AU - Kellezi, Blerina
AU - Timmons, Stephen
AU - Andrews, Isabel
AU - Fallon, Stephen
AU - Lannin, Natasha
AU - Holmes, Jain
AU - Kendrick, Denise
AU - on behalf of the ROWTATE Team
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference number RP-PG-0617-20001). NL is funded by the National Heart Foundation of Australia (GNT102055). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre-(5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP); interviews pre-(5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access); beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style); optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social/professional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers.
AB - Background: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre-(5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP); interviews pre-(5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access); beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style); optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social/professional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers.
KW - Acceptability
KW - Clinical psychology
KW - Mixed methods
KW - Occupational therapy
KW - Patient perspectives
KW - Return to work
KW - Tele-health
KW - Traumatic injuries
KW - Vocational rehabilitation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114917748&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph18189744
DO - 10.3390/ijerph18189744
M3 - Article
C2 - 34574670
AN - SCOPUS:85114917748
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 18
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 18
M1 - 9744
ER -