Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487255›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; a cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals.

Berber Brouns, Leti van Bodegom-Vos, Arend J de Kloet, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland, Ingrid L C Gil, Lígia M N Souza, Lucia W Braga, Jorit J L Meesters

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Berber BrounsDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. b.brouns@basaltrevalidatie.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2141-3624
Leti van Bodegom-VosDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, section Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Arend J de KloetFaculty of Health, Nutrition and Sports, The Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Thea P M Vliet VlielandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ingrid L C GilThe SARAH Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, Brasilia, Brazil.
Lígia M N SouzaThe SARAH Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, Brasilia, Brazil.
Lucia W BragaThe SARAH Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, Brasilia, Brazil.
Jorit J L MeestersDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLSarah Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals · BRThe Hague University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

Stichting Innovatie Alliantie Grant 2014-046PRO
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke among Brazilian Healthcare Professionals (BHP) and Dutch Healthcare Professionals (DHP).

methodA cross-sectional survey study including 88 statements about factors related to the use of eRehabilitation (4-point Likert scale; 1-4; unimportant-important/disagree-agree). The survey was conducted among BHP and DHP (physical therapists, rehabilitating physicians and psychologists). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation.

resultsninety-nine (response rate 30%) BHP and 105 (response rate 37%) DHP participated. Differences were found in the top-10 most influencing statements between BHP and DHP BHP rated the following factors as most important: sufficient support from the organisation (e.g. the rehabilitation centre) concerning resources and time, and potential benefits of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient. DHP rated the feasibility of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient (e.g. a helpdesk and good instructions) as most important for effective uptake. Top-10 least important statements were mostly similar; both BHP and DHP rated problems caused by stroke (e.g. aphasia or cognitive problems) or problems with resources (e.g. hardware and software) as least important for the uptake of eRehabilitation.

conclusionThe results indicate that the use of eRehabilitation after stroke by BHP and DHP is influenced by different factors. A tailored implementation strategy for both countries needs to be developed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelTelemedicineAdultAphasiaBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Care SurveysHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsQualitative ResearchRehabilitation CentersBarriers and facilitatorseRehabilitationImplementationInterculturalRehabilitationStrokeSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32487255
PMCPMC7268386
OpenAlexW4233514764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.