Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has had a major impact on healthcare services with many changes to telehealth care delivery. More information is needed about the patient perspective of telehealth in hospital services and the potential costs and benefits for patients. Aim To measure patients' evaluation of telehealth, preferences for telehealth versus in‐person appointments, and potential cost savings by patient characteristics. Methods A cross‐sectional online survey (including patient and appointment characteristics, telehealth evaluation, preferences for care and costs) of adult patients using video telehealth in four metropolitan tertiary hospital services in Melbourne, Victoria. Results A total of 1045 patients (median age 44 years; interquartile range 29–59) participated with an overall response rate of 9.2%. For 98.7% patients, telehealth was convenient, 96.4% stated that it saved time, 95.9% found telehealth acceptable to receive care and 97.0% found that telehealth improved their access to care. Most (62.6%) preferred in‐person consultations, although 86.9% agreed that telehealth was equivalent to an in‐person consultation. Those in regional and rural areas were less likely to prefer in‐person consultations. Patients attending for medical reasons were less likely to prefer in‐person consultation compared with patients with surgical reasons. Patient preference to telehealth was independent of level of education, appointment type, self‐rated health status and socio economic status. Patients saved an average of A$120.9 (standard deviation A$93.0) per appointment, with greater cost savings for patients from low and middle socio economic areas and regional or rural areas. Conclusion Telehealth video consultations were largely evaluated positively with most patients considering the service to be as good as in‐person. Understanding patient preference is critical to consider when implementing telehealth as mainstream across hospital health services.

IntroductionSupervisors of occupational therapists play a key role facilitating reflective practice with their supervisees. Through reflective practice, supervisees can optimise their skills in professional reasoning and decision making. The aim of this study was to describe to what degree reflective practice is facilitated within occupational therapy supervision processes.MethodsA mixed methods study design was used, collecting data via online surveys and focus groups. Quantitative data were initially analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative and quantitative data were then thematically analysed to identify hindering and enabling mechanisms to reflective practice facilitation.ResultsEighteen supervisees and 17 supervising occupational therapists completed the surveys and 14 supervisors participated in a focus group. Half of the supervisees reported that reflective practice was facilitated through supervision only “rarely” or “sometimes.” A hindering mechanism to reflective practice facilitation was the awareness of reflective practice models. Enabling mechanisms for reflective practice facilitation included understanding the benefits of reflective practice; recognising the attributes of a reflective practice practitioner; setting up an optimal supervision environment; and flexibly facilitating reflective practice.ConclusionFindings suggest that reflective practice is not always regularly facilitated through supervision. This may limit opportunities for supervisees to optimise the development of their professional reasoning and clinical skills in the early stages of their careers.

Importance: Pacing is a key pain management strategy used by occupational therapy practitioners when working with people with chronic pain. However, there is a paucity of evidence and a lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of pacing as a pain management strategy for people with chronic pain. Objective: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of pacing as a learned strategy for people with chronic pain. Data Sources: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used to undertake a systematic review. Six databases were searched in March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Combinations of keywords and MeSH terms were used as search terms. Study Selection and Data Collection: We sought intervention studies that included participants using pacing as a strategy. Studies were assessed for eligibility on the basis of predetermined criteria. Of the 2,820 articles located, 7 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Findings: Pacing does not reduce the severity of pain or alter psychological traits; however, it can assist in lessening joint stiffness and the interference of fatigue and in decreasing the variability of physical activity. Conclusions and Relevance: Current evidence supports the delivery of a learned pacing intervention to reduce the interference of fatigue, reduce joint stiffness, and decrease physical activity variability but does not support the use of learned pacing to reduce pain severity. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of pacing as a pain management strategy within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains of activity and participation. What This Article Adds: This systematic review examines existing research on pacing as a learned intervention strategy. The findings will support the clinical reasoning of occupational therapy practitioners, to determine when a learned pacing strategy is indicated, and considerations for how it may be delivered.

Chronic pain is a significant public health issue, with approximately 30% of the population worldwide reporting its presence (Elzahaf, Tashani, Unsworth, & Johnson, 2012). In 2018, this equated to 3.24 million Australians who were living with chronic pain (Deloitte Access Economics, 2019). The economic burden associated with chronic pain in Australia in 2018 was $73.2 billion dollars (Deloitte Access Economics, 2019). Chronic pain can be defined as pain that has not resolved within the expected timeframe of 3 months, and is not responsive to treatments that usually resolve pain (Kennedy,