{"title":"Telehealth usability in a university student physiotherapy clinic during COVID-19.","authors":"Maureen McEvoy, Caroline Fryer, Emily Ward, Saravana Kumar","doi":"10.1002/msc.1906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>'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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An 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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All groups agreed that the delivery format was useful, easy to use and provided a satisfactory service but was not reliable.</p>","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"22 2","pages":"e1906"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: '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.
Methods: An 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).
Results: Data 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).
Conclusions: All groups agreed that the delivery format was useful, easy to use and provided a satisfactory service but was not reliable.
期刊介绍:
Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.