Patient, Provider, and Organizational Considerations for Implementing Rehabilitation Telehealth.

Introduction: While telehealth services (THS) have been around for some time, for many in the rehabilitation services, it is a new mode of service delivery. THS can be as effective as face-to-face care and are valued by patients and clinicians. However, THS present considerable challenges and may not be appropriate for everyone. Clinicians and organizations must be prepared to triage and manage patients in this environment. Aims of this study were to capture clinician perceptions of the implementation of THS in rehabilitation and use the insights gained to provide strategies for overcoming implementation challenges. Methods: An electronic survey was emailed to 234 rehabilitation clinicians in a large urban hospital. Completion was voluntary and anonymous. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses consisted of an iterative consensus-driven interpretivist approach. Multiple strategies were used to minimize bias and optimize trustworthiness. Results: From the 48 responses received, four themes were identified: (1) THS provide unique benefits for patients, providers, and organizations; (2) challenges arose in multiple domains (clinical, technological, environmental, and regulatory); (3) clinicians require specific personal, clinical, and technological knowledge, skills, and attributes to be effective; and (4) individual characteristics, session type, home environment, and needs must be considered in patient selection. Discussion and Conclusion: From the themes identified, a conceptual framework illustrating the keys to effective implementation of THS was developed. Recommendations addressing challenges across multiple domains (clinical, technological, environmental, and regulatory), and at all levels of care delivery (patient, provider, and organization) are provided. Insights gained from this study can be used by clinicians in advocating for and designing effective THS programs. Educators would also gain from using these recommendations to train students and clinicians to recognize and address the challenges they may encounter in providing THS in rehabilitation.

Trials Investigating Exercise for Low Back Pain Lack Pragmatic Application: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the orientation of trials analyzing exercise for low back pain (LBP) on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for trials published between January 1, 2010, and August 13, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials investigating exercise for adults with LBP. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to determine the efficacy-effectiveness orientation. The same 2 reviewers assessed the risk of bias for all studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias 2.0 tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 2975 records. Full-text review was conducted on 674 studies, and 159 studies were included. The proportion of trials with a strong or rather strong efficacy orientation (RITES rating=1 or 2), balanced emphasis (RITES rating=3), or strong or rather strong effectiveness (RITES rating=4 or 5) orientation on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum within each RITES domain were reported. A greater proportion of trials had an efficacy orientation when compared with effectiveness or a balanced emphasis within 4 domains: participant characteristics: efficacy 43.9%, 41.9% effectiveness, balanced 14.5%; trial setting: 69.0% efficacy, effectiveness 15.8% balanced 15.2%; flexibility of interventions: 74.2% efficacy, effectiveness 8.8%, balanced 17.0%; clinical relevance of experimental and comparison interventions: 50.3% efficacy, 33.3% effectiveness 33.3%, balanced 16.4%. A high risk of bias was found in 42.1% (n=67) of trials. CONCLUSION: Trials investigating the effect of exercise for LBP have a greater orientation toward efficacy across multiple trial design domains. Researchers should consider pragmatic designs in future trials to improve generalizability. Clinicians should consider the efficacy-effectiveness orientation when translating evidence into clinical practice.

What factors do physical therapists consider when determining patient prognosis: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: A prognosis provides valuable information to expected progress and anticipated outcome over the course of care. Although it is known that physical therapists can accurately prognose, it is unknown what factors are utilised in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic domains and factors that influenced a PT's clinical reasoning processes. DESIGN: Mixed Methods Design, affirming the prognostic ability of the physical therapists and the qualitative exploration of the prognostic factors considered by physical therapists. METHODS: Twenty-nine physical therapists participated in this study. Participants underwent semi-structured qualitative interviews that were coded to populate a prognostic framework. In addition, de-identified patient data was used to determine the ability of the PT to form a prognosis. Linear regression was used to determine if an initial prognostic score was related to function at discharge. RESULTS: There were significant relationships (p = <0.05) between the prognosis score and Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes (B = 2.25), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (B = 0.257), and GROC (B = 0.289) upon patient discharge. Qualitative factors were categorised into prognostic domains (prevalence): Mood, Motivation, Pain Behaviours (100%), Disease Severity (93.1%), Health Status (86.2%), Social, Occupation, Environmental (67.0%), and Genetics, Biology, Biomarkers (44.8%). Factors that did not fit established domains were reported and categorised as Other (86.2%). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the relationship between PT prognosis of patients with musculoskeletal pain and patient outcomes. In addition, the domains and factors PTs use to formulate prognosis during evaluation present a complex biopsychosocial framework, suggesting that PTs consider factors from multiple domains when forming a prognosis.