Factors affecting the delivery and acceptability of the ROWTATE telehealth vocational rehabilitation intervention for traumatic injury survivors: a mixed-methods study

Tools

Kettlewell, J, Lindley, R, Radford, K, Patel, P, Bridger, K ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4215-4927, Kellezi, B ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4825-3624, Timmons, S, Andrews, I, Fallon, S, Lannin, N, Holmes, J and Kendrick, D, 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): 9744. ISSN 1661-7827

Preview

Text
1471882_Kellezi.pdf - Published version
Download (1MB) | Preview

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189744

Abstract

Background: 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.

Item Type:	Journal article
Publication Title:	International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Creators:	Kettlewell, J., Lindley, R., Radford, K., Patel, P., Bridger, K., Kellezi, B., Timmons, S., Andrews, I., Fallon, S., Lannin, N., Holmes, J. and Kendrick, D.
Publisher:	MDPI
Date:	16 September 2021
Volume:	18
Number:	18
ISSN:	1661-7827
Identifiers:	Number Type 10.3390/ijerph18189744 DOI 1471882 Other
Rights:	© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Divisions:	Schools > School of Social Sciences
Record created by:	Laura Ward
Date Added:	20 Sep 2021 14:27
Last Modified:	20 Sep 2021 14:27
URI:	https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/44222