Sustainable practices in hand therapy: a global perspective.

Given its significant environmental footprint, healthcare sustainability is paramount. This study delves into the contributory role of hand therapy, assessing hand therapists' comprehension, implementation and barriers to sustainable practices, focusing on orthotic fabrication. A global survey distributed via social media and professional networks collected data on sustainability awareness, practices and educational needs from 113 respondents, primarily from North America (34%) and Europe (32%). Although 91% recognized climate change, only 34% practised sustainability. Despite 57% attempting eco-friendly actions in orthotic fabrication, such as reusing components (65%), knowledge of reusable materials was low (17%) and recycling thermoplastics was inadequate (74.3%). The main barriers were lack of awareness (59%), material scarcity (56.6%) and time constraints (54%). The findings underscore the urgent need for enhanced education, better resource availability and policy reforms to close the gap between awareness and action, promoting sustainability in hand therapy.

Do current upper limb orthotic classification systems help clinicians choose and design effective orthoses? A scoping review with expert interviews.

BACKGROUND: Orthosis (orthotic) fabrication is an essential part of the treatment plan for many upper extremity conditions. PURPOSE: We aim to comprehensively identify the current body of evidence about the purpose, structure, scope, and application of available orthotic classification systems. Our secondary aim was to know if the current classification systems can be used as a decision guide for clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: A scoping review. METHODS: A scoping review of research studies identified through data-based and gray literature was conducted to determine studies that addressed classification systems of the orthosis (orthotic) in the hand and upper limb. Two investigators screened study titles and abstracts and did the data extraction. To do a comprehensive review, all the hand therapy associations were contacted and asked to share their specific orthosis classification system. To answer our second aim, we discussed our findings with the experts in a panel. RESULTS: Twelve different classification systems were identified, which were developed with different aims. Five classification systems classified orthosis based on their function (n = 5, 50%); one based on therapeutic goals and proposed a decision algorithm. Two of the proposed systems were aimed at helping in decision-making or offering an algorithm for therapists to help them choose the proper orthosis. The expert panel process identified that the current classification systems could not help clinicians select proper orthosis for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are different classification systems which were developed with various aims. However, none of those can help clinicians make informed decisions about appropriate orthosis choices for their patients.

A description of the barriers, facilitators, and experiences of hand therapists in providing remote (tele) rehabilitation: An interpretive description approach.

BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation is increasingly being used to meet the rehabilitation needs of situations where face-to-face therapy is not possible. Nevertheless, reports on barriers and facilitators of implementing this method from the perspective of therapists still need to be made available. PURPOSE: To investigate the experiences of hand therapists when implementing telerehabilitation, examining the difficulties, barriers, and facilitators encountered during its implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: This study used a purposive sampling method to recruit therapists with varying experiences in telerehabilitation and conducted semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis continued iteratively until thematic saturation was achieved. A total of 14 therapists were interviewed via Zoom. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. The process of interpretive description guided interviews and analysis of the interviews to identify key barriers and facilitators in providing telerehabilitation. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Six main themes and 10 corresponding sub-themes were constructed concerning facilitators and barriers to telerehabilitation: factors related to the patient, therapy, therapists, injury, technology, and policy. Therapists implemented different coping strategies in their interventions and measurements to facilitate treatment. However, some interventions, such as orthotic fabrication, could not be done online. Educating therapists, providing a standard method, and integrating with in-person rehabilitation can overcome the barriers to telerehabilitation in hand therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Technology was the main facilitator and, on the other hand, a barrier to providing online hand therapy interventions. Therapists generally reported high satisfaction and usability of this method. Despite all barriers, telerehabilitation can be implemented as a part of hand therapy interventions alongside face-to-face therapy as a hybrid method. The barriers and facilitators experienced and raised by therapists can be added to what is already known regarding telerehabilitation in hand therapy. They might be applied to guide therapeutic procedures and upcoming studies.