Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Factors Affecting the Delivery and Acceptability of the ROWTATE Telehealth Vocational Rehabilitation Intervention for Traumatic Injury Survivors: A Mixed-Methods Study

Kettlewell, Jade; Lindley, Rebecca; Radford, Kate; Patel, Priya; Bridger, Kay; Kellezi, Blerina; Timmons, Stephen; Andrews, Isabel; Fallon, Stephen; Lannin, Natasha; Holmes, Jain; Kendrick, Denise

Factors Affecting the Delivery and Acceptability of the ROWTATE Telehealth Vocational Rehabilitation Intervention for Traumatic Injury Survivors: A Mixed-Methods Study Thumbnail


Authors

PRIYA PATEL Priya.Patel1@nottingham.ac.uk
Research Assistant

Kay Bridger

Blerina Kellezi

STEPHEN TIMMONS stephen.timmons@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Health Services Management

Isabel Andrews

Stephen Fallon

Natasha Lannin

JAIN HOLMES JAIN.HOLMES@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Senior Research Fellow

DENISE KENDRICK DENISE.KENDRICK@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Professor of Primary Care Research



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.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Sep 14, 2021
Online Publication Date Sep 16, 2021
Publication Date Sep 1, 2021
Deposit Date Sep 14, 2021
Publicly Available Date Sep 22, 2021
Journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Print ISSN 1661-7827
Electronic ISSN 1660-4601
Publisher MDPI AG
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 18
Issue 18
Article Number 9744
DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189744
Keywords Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/6239275
Publisher URL https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9744
Additional Information Authors on behalf of the ROWTATE Team

Files





You might also like



Downloadable Citations