ArticleBMC health services research2024
Factors that facilitate or hinder the use of the facial rehabilitation webtool MEPP 2.0: a comparative study in the Quebecer health system.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version.
methodsForty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model.
resultsOverall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p < 0.001), and all clinicians preferred the MEPP 2.0 over the MEPP 1.0. For patients, it seems that facial ownership, as well as possession and control of facial movements, was significantly better with the MEPP 2.0. For clinicians, the MEPP 2.0 specifically allowed them to self-evaluate their intervention and follow up with more objectivity. The use of the MEPP 2.0 was also modulated by what their patients reported. Qualitatively, options to access an Android app and needs for improving the exercises bank were mentioned as hindering factors.
conclusionsThe updated version of the MEPP website, the MEPP 2.0, was preferred by our different partners.
trial registrationhttps://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10885397 . The trial was registered before the start of the study on the 1
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.