ArticleHeliyon2024
Healthcare professionals' beliefs, attitudes, and thoughts toward cardiopulmonary telerehabilitation: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Heliyon, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare professionals' opinions, attitudes, and thoughts toward new digital healthcare are often overlooked. However, they play a crucial role in accepting new digital care strategies. This research aimed to understand the perceptions of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation professionals towards telerehabilitation by conducting a mixed-method study at various Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi centers in Italy. A total of 14 healthcare workers, including 7 experts in telerehabilitation, participated through surveys and semi-structured focus groups, covering 12 thematic areas derived from the Theoretical Domains Framework (knowledge; professional role; beliefs about capabilities; beliefs about consequences; optimism; reinforcement, goals; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; social influences; emotions; ideal patient's profile). Participants (mean age = 45.00 ± 9.06; M:F = 3:11) shared diverse experiences and views on telerehabilitation. All participants had a good knowledge of telerehabilitation. While non-experts indicated technological expertise and preserved cognitive level as a prerequisite for telerehabilitation use, experts believed that no ideal patient exists and that all people can benefit from it. They converged in defining it as a new delivery path of rehabilitation with the same objective of face-to-face rehabilitation services, enhancing the patient's quality of life. Environmental, infrastructural, and institutional resources are needed to enhance accessibility. Positive attitude, optimism, and expectation were reported, but uncertainties about how to manage safety issues and increased workload were mentioned. The study showed a complex picture of staff rehabilitation beliefs about telerehabilitation. Overall, telerehabilitation was considered a great opportunity for patients who face barriers to in-person clinical interventions.
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.