eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: An International Survey of the Experiences and Needs of Healthcare Professionals

Abstract

While eHealth can help improve outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, the implementation and integration of eHealth is often complex and time-consuming. To use eHealth effectively in geriatric rehabilitation, it is essential to understand the experiences and needs of healthcare professionals. In this international multicentre cross-sectional study, we used a web-based survey to explore the use, benefits, feasibility and usability of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation settings, together with the needs of working healthcare professionals. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative findings. The survey was completed by 513 healthcare professionals from 16 countries. Over half had experience with eHealth, although very few (52 of 263 = 20%) integrated eHealth into daily practice. Important barriers to the use or implementation of eHealth included insufficient resources, lack of an organization-wide implementation strategy and lack of knowledge. Professionals felt that eHealth is more complex for patients than for themselves, and also expressed a need for reliable information concerning available eHealth interventions and their applications. While eHealth has clear benefits, important barriers hinder successful implementation and integration into healthcare. Tailored implementation strategies and reliable information on effective eHealth applications are needed to overcome these barriers.

Factors Facilitating and Inhibiting the Implementation of Telerehabilitation—A Scoping Review

“…Of the 28 included publications, 17 addressed the research question using a qualitative design [ 26 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], while 5 studies worked with a quantitative design [ 25 , 40 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] and 5 studies were based on a mixed methods approach [ 27 , 30 , 38 , 41 , 53 ]. One of the included articles was a synthesis of six qualitative and quantitative studies with different study designs, which were mentioned, but not explained in detail (pre-post, pilot studies, RCTs, observational designs) [ 31 ].…”

“…One of the mixed-methods studies was a combination of a survey and focus groups [ 53 ]. The majority of studies ( n = 16) were cross-sectional in design [ 25 , 26 , 29 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], followed by pre-and post-design [ 30 , 38 , 40 , 47 , 49 ]. In qualitative studies, the sample sizes ranged from n = 3 to n = 26, and in quantitative studies, they ranged from n = 26 to n = 513.…”

“…The TR programme described in the included studies consisted largely ( n = 15) of therapies that were delivered via videoconferencing programmes, using laptops, PCs and tablets [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 53 ]. Some of these were also offered as group therapy [ 38 , 40 , 42 ].…”

“…In 19 studies, TR was analysed exclusively from the perspectives of healthcare professionals [ 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], while seven studies also included the patients’ perspectives [ 25 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 41 , 45 ]. Two studies analysed only the patients’ perspectives [ 38 , 49 ].…”

“…Two studies analysed only the patients’ perspectives [ 38 , 49 ]. The target groups of TR were generally adults, and three of them focused exclusively on older patients [ 37 , 52 , 53 ]. Only four studies explicitly treated children or involving familiy members [ 27 , 30 , 33 , 40 ].…”