Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPatel, Priya
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-28T11:01:18Z
dc.date.available2021-09-28T11:01:18Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationKettlewell, J., Lindley, R., Radford, K., Patel, P., Bridger, K., Kellezi, B., Timmons, S., Andrews, I., Fallon, S., Lannin, N., et al. (2021). Factors affecting the delivery and acceptability of the ROWTATE telehealth vocational rehabilitation intervention for traumatic injury survivors: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), pp.9744.en_US
dc.identifier.other10.3390/ijerph18189744
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/14887
dc.descriptionThis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
dc.description.abstractBackground: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP); interviews pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access); beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style); optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social/professional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers.
dc.description.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9744en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectVocational rehabilitationen_US
dc.subjectWounds and injuriesen_US
dc.subjectReturn to worken_US
dc.subjectOccupational therapyen_US
dc.titleFactors affecting the delivery and acceptability of the ROWTATE telehealth vocational rehabilitation intervention for traumatic injury survivors: A mixed-methods studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-30T14:05:24Z
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2021-09-16
html.description.abstractBackground: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP); interviews pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access); beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style); optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social/professional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Kettlewell et al 2021 9744.pdf
Size:
977.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Thumbnail
Name:
Kettlewell et al 2021 9744.pdf
Size:
977.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record