TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Exercise Physiology Services in Australia
T2 - A Retrospective Audit
AU - Owen, Patrick J.
AU - Keating, Shelley E.
AU - Askew, Christopher D.
AU - Clanchy, Kelly M.
AU - Jansons, Paul
AU - Maddison, Ralph
AU - Maiorana, Andrew
AU - McVicar, Jenna
AU - Robinson, Suzanne
AU - Mundell, Niamh L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by Exercise and Sports Science Australia (ESSA Telehealth Research Project). SEK was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia via an Early Career Research Fellowship (Grant Number: 1122190).
Funding Information:
This work was supported by Exercise and Sports Science Australia (ESSA Telehealth Research Project). SEK was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia via an Early Career Research Fellowship (grant number: 1122190). The authors thank the study participants.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a shift in healthcare towards telehealth delivery, which presents challenges for exercise physiology services. We aimed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the reach, efficacy, adoption and implementation of telehealth delivery for exercise physiology services by comparing Australian practises before (prior to 25 January 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (after 25 January 2020). Methods: This retrospective audit included 80 accredited exercise physiology clinicians. We examined relevant dimensions of the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption and implementation) from the clinician perspective. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, 91% (n = 73/80) of surveyed clinicians offered telehealth delivery service, compared to 25% (n = 20/80) prior. Mean (SD) telehealth delivery per week doubled from 5 (7) to 10 (8) hours. In-person delivery decreased from 23 (11) to 15 (11) hours per week. Typical reasons for not offering telehealth delivery were client physical/cognitive incapacity (n = 33/80, 41%) and safety (n = 24/80, 30%). Clinician-reported reasons for typical clients not adopting telehealth delivery were personal preference (n = 57/71, 80%), physical capacity (n = 35/71, 49%) and access to reliable delivery platforms (n = 27/71, 38%). Zoom (n = 54/71, 76%) and telephone (n = 53/71, 75%) were the most commonly used platforms. Of the reasons contributing to incomplete treatment, lack of confidence in delivery mode was sevenfold higher for telehealth compared to in-person delivery. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth delivery of exercise physiology services increased and in-person delivery decreased, which suggests the profession was adaptable and agile. However, further research determining comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness is warranted.
AB - Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a shift in healthcare towards telehealth delivery, which presents challenges for exercise physiology services. We aimed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the reach, efficacy, adoption and implementation of telehealth delivery for exercise physiology services by comparing Australian practises before (prior to 25 January 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (after 25 January 2020). Methods: This retrospective audit included 80 accredited exercise physiology clinicians. We examined relevant dimensions of the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption and implementation) from the clinician perspective. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, 91% (n = 73/80) of surveyed clinicians offered telehealth delivery service, compared to 25% (n = 20/80) prior. Mean (SD) telehealth delivery per week doubled from 5 (7) to 10 (8) hours. In-person delivery decreased from 23 (11) to 15 (11) hours per week. Typical reasons for not offering telehealth delivery were client physical/cognitive incapacity (n = 33/80, 41%) and safety (n = 24/80, 30%). Clinician-reported reasons for typical clients not adopting telehealth delivery were personal preference (n = 57/71, 80%), physical capacity (n = 35/71, 49%) and access to reliable delivery platforms (n = 27/71, 38%). Zoom (n = 54/71, 76%) and telephone (n = 53/71, 75%) were the most commonly used platforms. Of the reasons contributing to incomplete treatment, lack of confidence in delivery mode was sevenfold higher for telehealth compared to in-person delivery. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth delivery of exercise physiology services increased and in-person delivery decreased, which suggests the profession was adaptable and agile. However, further research determining comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness is warranted.
KW - Coronavirus
KW - eHealth
KW - mHealth
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Telehealth
KW - Telemedicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134631038&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s40798-022-00483-2
DO - 10.1186/s40798-022-00483-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 35867168
AN - SCOPUS:85134631038
SN - 2198-9761
VL - 8
JO - Sports Medicine - Open
JF - Sports Medicine - Open
IS - 1
M1 - 94
ER -