一系列关于康复虚拟护理的快速回顾方法,回顾其优势和挑战,以告知最佳实践。

IF 1.7 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jennifer Sigouin, Anne Hudon, Mirella Veras, Simon Beaulieu-Bonneau, Sabrina Cavallo, Dahlia Kairy
{"title":"一系列关于康复虚拟护理的快速回顾方法,回顾其优势和挑战,以告知最佳实践。","authors":"Jennifer Sigouin, Anne Hudon, Mirella Veras, Simon Beaulieu-Bonneau, Sabrina Cavallo, Dahlia Kairy","doi":"10.3390/clinpract14060214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objective</b>: Over the past two decades, the utilization of virtual care in rehabilitation has witnessed a significant surge; this is owing to the widespread availability of technological tools and the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, discussions surrounding the relevance and benefits of telerehabilitation have gained prominence among practitioners, who continually seek to enhance patient care while maintaining high standards of quality. Associated with these discussions are concerns over being able to provide care in an ethical way, as well as addressing equity issues that might be hindered or improved via telerehabilitation. To address the ethical and equity concerns around telerehabilitation, a series of five parallel rapid reviews of the scientific literature were conducted, focusing on different rehabilitation fields: physiotherapy and occupational therapy (1); speech therapy and audiology (2); psychology and neuropsychology (3); and in two age groups: older adults (4); and pediatrics and young adults (5). The objective of this series of rapid reviews is to evaluate the evidence presented regarding telerehabilitation; identifying and recommending best practices especially in the realm of ethics and equity. <b>Methods:</b> Medline; CINAHL; and EMBASE were searched between 2010 and 2023 for English or French-language reviews (2010-2020) and individual studies (2020-2023) pertaining to telerehabilitation and these fields of interest. Data were extracted following a standardized form focusing on: outcomes; findings; quality assessment/biases; limitations; and discussion of ethical and equity concerns. <b>Results:</b> The results are presented according to the most relevant themes, which include: findings; strengths; limitations; and ethical/equity considerations. <b>Conclusions:</b> This research presents a methodology rarely published before, on how to conduct multiple parallel rapid reviews on the theme of telerehabilitation, based on different rehabilitation fields and age groups. This research will shape future guidelines and standards in applying ethical and equity standards in telerehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"14 6","pages":"2713-2724"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11674943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodology for a Series of Rapid Reviews on Virtual Care in Rehabilitation, Reviewing Its Advantages and Challenges to Inform Best Practices.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Sigouin, Anne Hudon, Mirella Veras, Simon Beaulieu-Bonneau, Sabrina Cavallo, Dahlia Kairy\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/clinpract14060214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objective</b>: Over the past two decades, the utilization of virtual care in rehabilitation has witnessed a significant surge; this is owing to the widespread availability of technological tools and the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, discussions surrounding the relevance and benefits of telerehabilitation have gained prominence among practitioners, who continually seek to enhance patient care while maintaining high standards of quality. Associated with these discussions are concerns over being able to provide care in an ethical way, as well as addressing equity issues that might be hindered or improved via telerehabilitation. To address the ethical and equity concerns around telerehabilitation, a series of five parallel rapid reviews of the scientific literature were conducted, focusing on different rehabilitation fields: physiotherapy and occupational therapy (1); speech therapy and audiology (2); psychology and neuropsychology (3); and in two age groups: older adults (4); and pediatrics and young adults (5). The objective of this series of rapid reviews is to evaluate the evidence presented regarding telerehabilitation; identifying and recommending best practices especially in the realm of ethics and equity. <b>Methods:</b> Medline; CINAHL; and EMBASE were searched between 2010 and 2023 for English or French-language reviews (2010-2020) and individual studies (2020-2023) pertaining to telerehabilitation and these fields of interest. Data were extracted following a standardized form focusing on: outcomes; findings; quality assessment/biases; limitations; and discussion of ethical and equity concerns. <b>Results:</b> The results are presented according to the most relevant themes, which include: findings; strengths; limitations; and ethical/equity considerations. <b>Conclusions:</b> This research presents a methodology rarely published before, on how to conduct multiple parallel rapid reviews on the theme of telerehabilitation, based on different rehabilitation fields and age groups. This research will shape future guidelines and standards in applying ethical and equity standards in telerehabilitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"2713-2724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11674943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14060214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14060214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:在过去的二十年中,虚拟护理在康复中的应用有了显著的增长;这是由于技术工具的广泛可用以及COVID-19大流行的全球影响。因此,围绕远程康复的相关性和益处的讨论在从业人员中获得了突出地位,他们不断寻求在保持高质量标准的同时提高患者护理。与这些讨论相关的问题是,能否以合乎道德的方式提供护理,以及如何解决远程康复可能阻碍或改善的公平问题。为了解决远程康复的伦理和公平问题,我们对不同的康复领域的科学文献进行了五次平行快速回顾:物理治疗和职业治疗(1);言语治疗和听力学(2);心理学与神经心理学(3);在两个年龄组:老年人(4人);儿科和年轻人(5)。这一系列快速回顾的目的是评估有关远程康复的证据;确定并推荐最佳做法,特别是在道德和公平领域。方法:Medline;CINAHL;在2010年至2023年期间检索与远程康复和这些感兴趣的领域有关的英语或法语评论(2010-2020)和个人研究(2020-2023)。数据提取遵循标准化的形式,重点是:结果;发现;质量评估/偏差;限制;以及道德和公平问题的讨论。结果:结果根据最相关的主题呈现,其中包括:发现;优势;限制;以及道德/公平考虑。结论:本研究提出了一种以前很少发表的方法,即如何基于不同的康复领域和年龄组对远程康复主题进行多个平行快速回顾。这项研究将形成在远程康复中应用道德和公平标准的未来指导方针和标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodology for a Series of Rapid Reviews on Virtual Care in Rehabilitation, Reviewing Its Advantages and Challenges to Inform Best Practices.

Background/Objective: Over the past two decades, the utilization of virtual care in rehabilitation has witnessed a significant surge; this is owing to the widespread availability of technological tools and the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, discussions surrounding the relevance and benefits of telerehabilitation have gained prominence among practitioners, who continually seek to enhance patient care while maintaining high standards of quality. Associated with these discussions are concerns over being able to provide care in an ethical way, as well as addressing equity issues that might be hindered or improved via telerehabilitation. To address the ethical and equity concerns around telerehabilitation, a series of five parallel rapid reviews of the scientific literature were conducted, focusing on different rehabilitation fields: physiotherapy and occupational therapy (1); speech therapy and audiology (2); psychology and neuropsychology (3); and in two age groups: older adults (4); and pediatrics and young adults (5). The objective of this series of rapid reviews is to evaluate the evidence presented regarding telerehabilitation; identifying and recommending best practices especially in the realm of ethics and equity. Methods: Medline; CINAHL; and EMBASE were searched between 2010 and 2023 for English or French-language reviews (2010-2020) and individual studies (2020-2023) pertaining to telerehabilitation and these fields of interest. Data were extracted following a standardized form focusing on: outcomes; findings; quality assessment/biases; limitations; and discussion of ethical and equity concerns. Results: The results are presented according to the most relevant themes, which include: findings; strengths; limitations; and ethical/equity considerations. Conclusions: This research presents a methodology rarely published before, on how to conduct multiple parallel rapid reviews on the theme of telerehabilitation, based on different rehabilitation fields and age groups. This research will shape future guidelines and standards in applying ethical and equity standards in telerehabilitation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信