Sarah Martineau, Jacinthe Barbeau, Alyssia Paquin, Karine Marcotte
{"title":"促进或阻碍使用面部康复网络工具 MEPP 2.0 的因素：魁北克医疗系统比较研究。","authors":"Sarah Martineau, Jacinthe Barbeau, Alyssia Paquin, Karine Marcotte","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p < 0.001), and all clinicians preferred the MEPP 2.0 over the MEPP 1.0. For patients, it seems that facial ownership, as well as possession and control of facial movements, was significantly better with the MEPP 2.0. For clinicians, the MEPP 2.0 specifically allowed them to self-evaluate their intervention and follow up with more objectivity. The use of the MEPP 2.0 was also modulated by what their patients reported. Qualitatively, options to access an Android app and needs for improving the exercises bank were mentioned as hindering factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The updated version of the MEPP website, the MEPP 2.0, was preferred by our different partners.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10885397 . The trial was registered before the start of the study on the 1<sup>st</sup> December 2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487791/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors that facilitate or hinder the use of the facial rehabilitation webtool MEPP 2.0: a comparative study in the Quebecer health system.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Martineau, Jacinthe Barbeau, Alyssia Paquin, Karine Marcotte\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p < 0.001), and all clinicians preferred the MEPP 2.0 over the MEPP 1.0. For patients, it seems that facial ownership, as well as possession and control of facial movements, was significantly better with the MEPP 2.0. For clinicians, the MEPP 2.0 specifically allowed them to self-evaluate their intervention and follow up with more objectivity. The use of the MEPP 2.0 was also modulated by what their patients reported. Qualitatively, options to access an Android app and needs for improving the exercises bank were mentioned as hindering factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The updated version of the MEPP website, the MEPP 2.0, was preferred by our different partners.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10885397 . The trial was registered before the start of the study on the 1<sup>st</sup> December 2023.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487791/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Factors that facilitate or hinder the use of the facial rehabilitation webtool MEPP 2.0: a comparative study in the Quebecer health system.
Background: Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version.
Methods: Forty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model.
Results: Overall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p < 0.001), and all clinicians preferred the MEPP 2.0 over the MEPP 1.0. For patients, it seems that facial ownership, as well as possession and control of facial movements, was significantly better with the MEPP 2.0. For clinicians, the MEPP 2.0 specifically allowed them to self-evaluate their intervention and follow up with more objectivity. The use of the MEPP 2.0 was also modulated by what their patients reported. Qualitatively, options to access an Android app and needs for improving the exercises bank were mentioned as hindering factors.
Conclusions: The updated version of the MEPP website, the MEPP 2.0, was preferred by our different partners.
Trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10885397 . The trial was registered before the start of the study on the 1st December 2023.
期刊介绍：
BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
