Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34574670›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Factors Affecting the Delivery and Acceptability of the ROWTATE Telehealth Vocational Rehabilitation Intervention for Traumatic Injury Survivors: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Jade Kettlewell, Rebecca Lindley, Kate Radford, Priya Patel, Kay Bridger, Blerina Kellezi, Stephen Timmons, Isabel Andrews, Stephen Fallon, Natasha Lannin and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jade KettlewellCentre for Health Innovation, Leadership & Learning, Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6713-4551
Rebecca LindleySchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5224-8230
Kate RadfordSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Priya PatelInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK.
Kay BridgerSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4215-4927
Blerina KelleziSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4825-3624
Stephen TimmonsCentre for Health Innovation, Leadership & Learning, Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK.
Isabel AndrewsSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Stephen FallonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Natasha LanninDepartment of Neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-8345
Jain HolmesSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Denise KendrickSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3603-6542
On Behalf Of The Rowtate Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReturning 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.

methodsSurveys 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.

resultsSurveys: 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.

conclusionDespite 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.

Indexed as

Rehabilitation, VocationalTelerehabilitationHumansOccupational TherapistsSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsacceptabilityclinical psychologymixed methodsoccupational therapypatient perspectivesreturn to worktelehealthtraumatic injuriesvocational rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID34574670
PMCPMC8471954

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.