Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Musculoskeletal Care, 2(22), 2024

DOI: 10.1002/msc.1906

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Telehealth usability in a university student physiotherapy clinic during COVID‐19

Journal article published in 2024 by Maureen McEvoy ORCID, Caroline Fryer ORCID, Emily Ward, Saravana Kumar
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractBackground‘Telehealth’ online delivery of physiotherapy was the only option during the Covid 19 pandemic in many areas. This was a challenge for physiotherapy training in student clinics where students, clinical educators (CEs) and clients were in three separate locations. The aim of this study was to determine the usability and acceptability of online delivery in a physiotherapy student clinic.MethodsAn observational cross‐sectional design was used. Clients (adult clients or carers of paediatric clients), students and CEs participated in telehealth physiotherapy appointments over a Telehealth platform called NeoRehab. The three groups were then invited to complete the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). The 21 item TUQ uses a 7‐point Likert scale and covers six constructs (Usefulness, Ease of Use, Interface quality, Interaction quality, Reliability, Satisfaction).ResultsData were analysed from 39 clients, 15 students, and seven CEs. The respective domain scores (SD) for Usefulness [(5.3 (1.5), 5.4 (0.7), 5.1 (0.7)] and Satisfaction [5.1 (1.6), 5.0 (1.0), 5.4 (0.7)] were similarly high across groups, while scores for Reliability [3.7 (1.5), 3.6 (1.0), 3.0 (0.5)] were similarly low across groups. Interface Quality [5.0 (1.5), 4.5 (1.2), 4.1 (0.8)] scores were similarly moderate. Ease of Use [5.6 (1.5), 5.3 (1.0), 4.1 (1.1)] scores were significantly higher in clients than CEs (p = 0.043). Interaction Quality [5.0 (1.4), 3.9 (1.3), 4.2 (0.9)] scores were significantly higher in clients compared with students (p = 0.03).ConclusionsAll groups agreed that the delivery format was useful, easy to use and provided a satisfactory service but was not reliable.