Telehealth usability in a university student physiotherapy clinic during COVID-19.

IF 1.5 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY

Musculoskeletal Care Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1002/msc.1906

Maureen McEvoy, Caroline Fryer, Emily Ward, Saravana Kumar

{"title":"Telehealth usability in a university student physiotherapy clinic during COVID-19.","authors":"Maureen McEvoy, Caroline Fryer, Emily Ward, Saravana Kumar","doi":"10.1002/msc.1906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: 'Telehealth' online delivery of physiotherapy was the only option during the Covid 19 pandemic in many areas. This was a challenge for physiotherapy training in student clinics where students, clinical educators (CEs) and clients were in three separate locations. The aim of this study was to determine the usability and acceptability of online delivery in a physiotherapy student clinic.Methods: An observational cross-sectional design was used. Clients (adult clients or carers of paediatric clients), students and CEs participated in telehealth physiotherapy appointments over a Telehealth platform called NeoRehab. The three groups were then invited to complete the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). The 21 item TUQ uses a 7-point Likert scale and covers six constructs (Usefulness, Ease of Use, Interface quality, Interaction quality, Reliability, Satisfaction).Results: Data were analysed from 39 clients, 15 students, and seven CEs. The respective domain scores (SD) for Usefulness [(5.3 (1.5), 5.4 (0.7), 5.1 (0.7)] and Satisfaction [5.1 (1.6), 5.0 (1.0), 5.4 (0.7)] were similarly high across groups, while scores for Reliability [3.7 (1.5), 3.6 (1.0), 3.0 (0.5)] were similarly low across groups. Interface Quality [5.0 (1.5), 4.5 (1.2), 4.1 (0.8)] scores were similarly moderate. Ease of Use [5.6 (1.5), 5.3 (1.0), 4.1 (1.1)] scores were significantly higher in clients than CEs (p = 0.043). Interaction Quality [5.0 (1.4), 3.9 (1.3), 4.2 (0.9)] scores were significantly higher in clients compared with students (p = 0.03).Conclusions: All groups agreed that the delivery format was useful, easy to use and provided a satisfactory service but was not reliable.","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"22 2","pages":"e1906"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 'Telehealth' online delivery of physiotherapy was the only option during the Covid 19 pandemic in many areas. This was a challenge for physiotherapy training in student clinics where students, clinical educators (CEs) and clients were in three separate locations. The aim of this study was to determine the usability and acceptability of online delivery in a physiotherapy student clinic.

Methods: An observational cross-sectional design was used. Clients (adult clients or carers of paediatric clients), students and CEs participated in telehealth physiotherapy appointments over a Telehealth platform called NeoRehab. The three groups were then invited to complete the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). The 21 item TUQ uses a 7-point Likert scale and covers six constructs (Usefulness, Ease of Use, Interface quality, Interaction quality, Reliability, Satisfaction).

Results: Data were analysed from 39 clients, 15 students, and seven CEs. The respective domain scores (SD) for Usefulness [(5.3 (1.5), 5.4 (0.7), 5.1 (0.7)] and Satisfaction [5.1 (1.6), 5.0 (1.0), 5.4 (0.7)] were similarly high across groups, while scores for Reliability [3.7 (1.5), 3.6 (1.0), 3.0 (0.5)] were similarly low across groups. Interface Quality [5.0 (1.5), 4.5 (1.2), 4.1 (0.8)] scores were similarly moderate. Ease of Use [5.6 (1.5), 5.3 (1.0), 4.1 (1.1)] scores were significantly higher in clients than CEs (p = 0.043). Interaction Quality [5.0 (1.4), 3.9 (1.3), 4.2 (0.9)] scores were significantly higher in clients compared with students (p = 0.03).

Conclusions: All groups agreed that the delivery format was useful, easy to use and provided a satisfactory service but was not reliable.

查看原文本刊更多论文

COVID-19 期间大学生物理治疗诊所的远程保健可用性。

背景：在 Covid 19 大流行期间，"远程保健 "在线提供物理治疗是许多地区的唯一选择。这对学生诊所的物理治疗培训是一个挑战，因为学生、临床教育者（CE）和客户分别在三个不同的地点。本研究旨在确定物理治疗学生诊所在线授课的可用性和可接受性：方法：采用观察性横断面设计。客户（成人客户或儿科客户的照顾者）、学生和行政主管通过名为 NeoRehab 的远程保健平台参与了远程保健物理治疗预约。然后邀请这三个小组填写远程保健可用性问卷（TUQ）。TUQ 共有 21 个项目，采用 7 点李克特量表，涵盖六个方面（实用性、易用性、界面质量、交互质量、可靠性、满意度）：对 39 名客户、15 名学生和 7 名行政长官的数据进行了分析。有用性[(5.3 (1.5),5.4 (0.7),5.1 (0.7)]和满意度[5.1 (1.6),5.0 (1.0),5.4 (0.7)]的领域得分（标清）在各组中同样较高，而可靠性[3.7 (1.5),3.6 (1.0),3.0 (0.5)]的得分在各组中同样较低。界面质量[5.0 (1.5)、4.5 (1.2)、4.1 (0.8)]得分同样处于中等水平。客户的易用性[5.6 (1.5)、5.3 (1.0)、4.1 (1.1)]得分明显高于行政长官（p = 0.043）。客户的互动质量[5.0 (1.4)、3.9 (1.3)、4.2 (0.9)]得分明显高于学生（p = 0.03）：所有小组都认为，这种授课形式有用、易用，提供的服务令人满意，但并不可靠。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Musculoskeletal Care RHEUMATOLOGY-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.