Content uploaded by Michel Tousignant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michel Tousignant on Sep 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 3998-4011; doi:10.3390/ijerph10093998
International Journal of
Environmental Research and
Public Health
ISSN 1660-4601
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Article
The Patient’s Perspective of in-Home Telerehabilitation
Physiotherapy Services Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Dahlia Kairy
1,†,
*, Michel Tousignant
2
, Nancy Leclerc
2,†
, Anne-Marie Côté
3,†
,
Mélanie Levasseur
3,†
and the Telage Researchers
1
School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in
Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal—IRGLM site, 6300 Darlington Avenue, Montreal,
Quebec H3S 2J4, Canada
2
Research Centre on Aging, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine
and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 1036 Belvédère Sud, Sherbrooke,
Quebec J1H 4C4, Canada; E-Mails: michel.tousignant@usherbrooke.ca (M.T.);
nancy.leclerc@usherbrooke.ca (N.L.)
3
School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 1036 Belvédère Sud, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 4C4, Canada;
E-Mails: anne-marie.cote3@usherbrooke.ca (A.-M.C.); Melanie.levasseur@usherbrooke.ca (M.L.)
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: dahlia.kairy@umontreal.ca;
Tel.: +1-514-343-6301; Fax: +1-514-343-6929.
Received: 16 July 2013; in revised form: 15 August 2013 / Accepted: 16 August 2013 /
Published: 30 August 2013
Abstract: This study aimed at exploring patients’ perceptions regarding telerehabilitation
services received post total knee replacement. In this qualitative embedded single case
study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five patients who had previously
received in-home telerehabilitation post total knee arthroplasty. Participants were asked to
reflect on their 8-week rehabilitation process and on their experience with the home
telerehabilitation program. Interviews were transcribed and a qualitative thematic analysis
was conducted. Six overarching themes emerged from the patients’ perceptions:
(1) improving access to services with reduced need for transportation; (2) developing a
strong therapeutic relationship with therapist while maintaining a sense of personal space;
(3) complementing telerehabilitation with in-person visits; (4) providing standardized yet
OPEN ACCESS
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 3999
tailored and challenging exercise programs using telerehabilitation; (5) perceived
ease-of-use of telerehabilitation equipment; and (6) feeling an ongoing sense of support.
Gaining a better understating of the patient’s experience in telerehabilitation will be
essential as programs continue to be developed and implemented.
Keywords: satisfaction; telerehabilitation; patients; semi-structured interview; qualitative
1. Introduction
Important demographic changes, including an aging population, increased life expectancy and a
greater prevalence of chronic conditions are putting increased strain on health care systems worldwide.
Moreover, the reduced length of hospital stays implies that patients return home sicker and with
incapacities [1–3]. To better meet these changing needs, different modes of health service delivery
have been proposed and developed. For example, home care services are well implemented in Canada.
However, it is recognized that home care cannot respond to the increasing demand for services [4,5]
and the lack of human resources [6,7]. Consequently, in-home telehealth, including telerehabilitation
programs, are becoming increasingly common as an alternative mode of service delivery.
Telerehabilitation is defined as the provision of rehabilitation services at a distance using information
and communication technologies [8–10].
Several studies have examined in-home telerehabilitation programs. Initial studies confirmed the
technical feasibility of in-home telerehabilitation [11–13]. More recent studies explored the efficacy of
such services in many patient populations and a number of systematic reviews and reports have
summarized these findings [8,14–17].
The successful implementation and integration of telehealth programs, including home telehealth,
remains slow [18]. It is increasingly recognized that the patient’s perception of the services should be
taken into account when implementing telehealth, including home telerehabilitation [19]. Despite
recognizing the importance of the patient’s perspective, it remains absent from many studies [20],
as was similarly reported by Mair et al. in 2000 [21]. In telehealth, the patient’s perspective is
generally documented through the concept of satisfaction and is reported using questionnaires and
surveys, primarily addressing the technical aspects of using the technology and the communication
between the participants [22].
In telerehabilitation, a similar trend has been noted [17]. For example, a previous study conducted
reported on satisfaction with in-home telerehabilitation for patients and health professionals following
a randomized clinical trial (RCT) post Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) [23]. High satisfaction rates
were noted with three predetermined factors: the technology, the health care services and the
relationship with the health care professional using validated questionnaires. The results obtained from
this quantitative study [23] were limited to the participants’ satisfaction concerning exclusively these
three factors (percentage).
Few studies have reported on aspects other than satisfaction when considering the patient’s
point-of-view. Two studies examined chronic pain sufferers’ perspective of in-home telerehabilitation.
The first used semi-structured interviews with participants who were informed about possible
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4000
telerehabilitation services [24]. The second used a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) with participants randomly allocated either to an experimental group who got
information about and could try out a web-based program which provided selected instructional videos
or a control group who only got information about the web-based program [25]. In the first study [24],
the authors reported that patients appreciated the flexibility that telerehabilitation could provide,
but were concerned with the lack of therapist in-person contact on their ability to successfully
participate in an exercise program. In the subsequent study [25], participants were more positive about
the usefulness and ease-of-use of the telemedicine program after experiencing it than before. Thus,
brief use of telemedicine has a significant positive effect on participants’ perception of the technology.
Similarly, in a chronic pain population [26], participant satisfaction (perceived usefulness, ease of
use and intent to use) was documented using a questionnaire based on the TAM, following a
myofeedback-based teletreatment which recorded data that was transmitted to the therapist for a
weekly teleconsultation. The authors reported that for a majority of participants, perceived ease of use
and usefulness increased after using the technology, although this study did not show a relationship
between satisfaction, compliance with treatment and clinical outcome.
Eriksson et al. [27] reported on the experience of patients in Sweden who had recently experienced
in-home telerehabilitation following a shoulder joint replacement using interviews with the patients.
Participants reported “feeling close at a distance” with their therapist who was able to guide them in a
home exercise program, overcoming their fear of pain.
Hence, few studies have explored the patient’s perspective of regarding telerehabilitation, even
though patients’ perceptions can have a significant impact on rehabilitation outcome [28]. This study
aimed at better understanding the patient’s experience of home telerehabilitation. More specifically,
this study explored the perception of patients who have undergone a total knee replacement (TKA)
concerning in-home telerehabilitation services.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
An embedded single case study design [29] was used in order to obtain an in-depth understanding
of the patients’ perception of the actual telerehabilitation services received. This type of study
design facilitates the understanding of the phenomenon of in-home telerehabilitation post TKA that
is at the same time context-dependent and influenced by the individual patient’s experience and
characteristics [29,30]. The case analysed was an in-home telerehabilitation program for patients who
had undergone total knee arthroplasty (see Section 2.3).
2.2. Participant Recruitment
In order to recruit participants who had experienced telerehabilitation and given the lack of
actual home telerehabilitation programs, patients were selected from a pool of participants from
the experimental arm of a RCT for in-home telerehabilitation post-TKA. In this context, we used
non-probability sampling. Participants were recruited once they had fully completed their participation
in the study, so as not to impact on the RCT. This study was not designed as part of the RCT TKA
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4001
(RCT recently concluded and findings not yet published). In order to obtain an in-depth understanding
of the phenomena, a purposive sample was selected, as suggested by Groenewald [31]. In order for
participants to be able to comment on their telerehabilitation experience, and compare it to in-person
types of physiotherapy services, only participants who previously received physiotherapy services in
the community, including but not limited to a previous TKA, were recruited. Eligible patients were
invited to take part in an in-person interview concerning their experience with the in-home
telerehabilitation service. This study was approved separately from the RCT by the appropriate ethics
review boards, with informed consent obtained from all participants.
2.3. Description of the in-Home Telerehabilitation Program
The in-home telerehabilitation program consisted of twice-a-week physiotherapy sessions for
eight weeks (total 16 sessions), each session lasting 45 to 60 min. The content of the intervention was
an adaptation of the Intensive Functional Rehabilitation (IFR) protocol [32]. Clinical equipment
(step, exercise pedal, 3- and 5-pounds weights and elastics) was lent out to each participant for the
entire duration of the intervention. The intervention was aimed at improving walking and functional
autonomy in daily activities as well as mobility and strength of lower limbs. A videoconferencing
system located in the participant’s home was connected remotely through high speed internet to the
health center’s system where the physiotherapist was located. The telerehabilitation platform used was
developed with a user-friendly system to ensure that interaction between clinician and patient during
the session was similar to that of the in-person intervention (Figure 1). The platform is the same as the
one used for previous studies [11,33]. Prior to starting the telerehabilitation services, participants had
never met their therapist in person.
Figure 1. Set-up for in-home telerehabilitation: (A) Videoconferencing system; (B)
Screen; (C) on/off switch.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4002
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis
A semi-structured individual interview was conducted with each patient in their home by a research
agent who is a member of our research team and had not been involved in providing the patients’
telerehabilitation services. An interview guide was developed based on the literature in the area of
technology adoption which suggests that concepts such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
attitude, intent to use, actual use and other external variables will affect how technology is used [34].
Participants were asked to reflect on their entire rehabilitation experience, with a particular emphasis
on key events such as finding out they would receive services at home by videoconference, having the
internet and videoconferencing equipment installed at home and receiving services by videoconference
including dealing with technical issues and completing the 8-week rehabilitation process.
Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed word for word. Each transcript was read and coded
line by line by one member of the research team using Text Analysis Markup System (TAMS)
Analyzer. We used investigators triangulation such that the interviews were initially analysed by one
researcher and then reread and confirmed by another researcher. When they had differences in the
codification, the researchers arrived at a consensus. The findings were then discussed in group with the
research team thus increasing the validity of the findings. Similarities and differences between the
cases were noted throughout the coding process and overarching themes were identified by the
research team [35].
In order to analyse each unit of analysis or each patient’s perception, we used thematic analysis
by Miles and Huberman [35] as mentioned by Yin [29]. This method provides an exhaustive
description of each unit of analysis (own patient perception of the telerehabilitation).
We then used matrices to explain the whole case and compare between patients to obtain a broader
perception of in-home telerehabilitation.
3. Results
Participant characteristics that could impact on the patient’s experience of telerehabilitation
(e.g., gender, age, work status, type of housing, living alone or not, internet access that was previously
installed or not, functional status prior to surgery) are presented in Table 1. Interviews lasted on
average 55 min, ranging from 37 to 67 min.
Overall, all participants agreed that the telerehabilitation treatment was a good alternative to
in-person physiotherapy sessions. Upon analysis, the patients’ perceptions of in-home telerehabilitation
services post-TKA were regrouped into six main themes as reported in the following section. Verbatim
quotes illustrate the results. Following the analysis in the original French Canadian version, quotes
were translated into English for publication, while retaining the style and meaning of the quote.
3.1. Improving Access to Services
The predominant benefit mentioned by all participants, was the elimination of all transportation
time for both the patient and therapist. More specifically, this was viewed as particularly useful
the first few weeks post-surgery when participants had more pain, as compared to travelling for
out-patient services.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4003
Table 1. Patients’characteristics.
Characteristics Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5
Gender Woman Man Man Woman Woman
Age (years) 44 72 62 59 70
Years of schooling (years) 15 18.5 15 16 11
Work status Not working Retired On disability Specialized educator (on
leave for recovery from
TKA)
Retired
Living alone Yes No, with wife Yes Yes No, with husband
Type of housing Apartment building Single family dwelling Single family
dwelling
Apartment building Duplex
Stairs at home Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Prior internet service No Yes No Yes No
Years of knee pain (years) 1–5 More than 10 1–5 More than 10 More than 10
Other medical condition Arthritis,
diabetes, anxiety,
disc degeneration
Arthritis, diabetes,
gastro-intestinal
disorder, visual
problem,
hypertension, prostate
cancer
in remission
Arthritis, asthma,
acute respiratory
distress syndrome
(ARDS), angina,
gastro-intestinal
disorder, depression,
anxiety
Arthritis, asthma, diabetes,
depression, anxiety, sleep
apnea, hypertension
Arthritis,
gastro-intestinal
disorder,
hyperthyroidism,
double pulmonary
embolism
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4004
“I really like it (telerehabilitation). I found it fantastic…you know, just the fact of not
having to travel when we are in pain (…) I adored it…” (participant 2)
Decreased preparation time was reported as a benefit, in particular not having to get ready to attend
an appointment in an out-patient setting. However, two of the participants did not feel that they needed
to save time at that particular point in their rehabilitation, when they are not working or participating in
many activities. Nevertheless, they do consider that telerehabilitation would be of benefit to others as,
according to them, it allows patients to access health services more easily and therapists to see
more patients.
3.2. Developing a Bond with Their Therapist While Maintaining a Sense of Personal Space
Although services were not provided face-to-face, all patients appreciated the contact they have
with their physiotherapist and their availability. All participants felt they developed a relationship with
the physiotherapist who made them at ease to express their needs. Overall, they felt listened to and
felt that they could express their concerns regarding their condition or other more personal issues.
They perceived the physiotherapist as supportive and well informed about their physical condition.
For example, participants reported that they felt as if the therapist was there in person. Moreover,
participants appreciated having informal conversations with their therapist. Four of the participants
mentioned that the therapist became like a family member.
“Well look, she (the physiotherapist), was roughly my nieces’ age. So it was the same as if
I was an aunt with her” (participant 1)
“…we talked about fishing, we talked about hunting, (…) we talked about skiing, hum, of
all sorts of things, while I was doing my exercises, we talked about anything and we
always had something to say. I think that she knew my whole life (laughter) (…)”
(participant 4)
One of these participants even preferred the use of telerehabilitation as compared to having the
therapist come to her home in person, such as was the case for participants who were assigned to the
usual-care arm of the RCT:
“I was satisfied. (...) the fact that she (the physiotherapist) was not with me in the house, I
was less stressed.” (participant 4)
As compared to out-patient services, participants reported that they appreciated the increased sense
of privacy and the bond they developed with their therapist with the use of telerehabilitation, as
compared to being in a physiotherapy department among other patients and therapists. Four of the
participants also felt the use of telerehabilitation provided their therapist with insight into their
home environment.
3.3. Complementing Telerehabilitation with in-Person Visits
A benefit mentioned by all the participants was the perception that the physiotherapist was able to
adequately evaluate via telerehabilitation the amplitude of the knee as well as the scar and their fatigue
and pain. They found the intensity of the exercises and length of the sessions to be appropriate for their
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4005
condition. Despite participants reporting that the use of telerehabilitation was appropriate for their
condition, three of the participants felt that their rehabilitation should have included some in-person
visits with their therapist. They felt that complementing telerehabilitation with the occasional in-person
visit would improve the physiotherapist’s evaluation of the knee as well as facilitate clinical follow-up.
For example, two participants mentioned that they would have liked more physical contact with a
therapist in order to ensure that they were progressing adequately and to deal with issues that arose,
such as poor patellar mobility, in a timelier manner.
“… she would have seen if she had touched me that my patella was not in the right place.”
(participant 1)
“I’m fairly certain that at least twice, on two occasions certainly if he would have come, it
would have been a plus. Well, maybe psychologically, I think, thinking that he could have
manipulated your knee, to see in a tangible manner and be able to manipulate it, but hum…
it’s the suggestion that I would give, to at least meet, I don’t know how often … (…).”
(participant 2)
In addition, two participants compared the assessment findings recorded by their therapist to those
reported by their orthopedist or another therapist. The participant who felt it was important to have
in-person visits with the therapist (participant 1) reported that an orthopedist’s assessment of the range
of motion differed from that of their therapist. On the other hand, the participant who did not feel it
was necessary to have an in-person visit with the therapist reported that their therapist’s findings were
identical to those of another therapist.
3.4. Providing Standardized yet Tailored and Challenging Exercise Programs Using Telerehabilitation
Although participants followed a standardized exercise program, they all felt their therapist tailored
the exercises appropriately thus respecting their fatigue, pain and abilities. They were confident that
the therapists provided appropriate supervision from a distance.
Participants appreciated being able to perform some of their exercise program outside of the
scheduled therapy time, thus increasing their exercise time with their therapist during the sessions.
“I installed the things I needed. Like that, all my bicycle, and hum... my step. I installed
that and it went well. Look, it took 2 min.” (participant 3)
“I got on the bike (stationary bicycle). I was hooked up (by videoconference), and I got on
the bike. Instead of him (the physiotherapist) watching me for 10–15 min, I had already
done a few minutes. So that after that, well, we did the rest.” (participant 4)
3.5. Perceived Ease-of-Use of Telerehabilitation Equipment
The use of new technology was not viewed as a limitation by any of the participants and did
not hinder their appreciation for telerehabilitation. All found it easy to use (“the touch of an on/off
button”) and found the equipment of little inconvenience in the space it occupied or the change it
produced to their home environment. The human aspect surrounding the new technology were
positively viewed including the process of setting up the internet connection, installing the technology
in the home and the trouble-shooting provided by the telerehabilitation team. Participants reported that
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4006
they did not feel additional stress when receiving services by telerehabilitation even for the few times
when there were communication difficulties. Four participants appreciated the clarity of the sound and
the concordance of the voice and the image, although in two of the five cases there were sessions with
a delay. All participants reported that the image of the physiotherapist was clear. Despite the freezing
of the image reported by one patient, the transmission of the image did not impact on the perception of
the quality of the treatment received for that person.
3.6. Achieving an Ongoing Sense of Support
At the time of discharge from the hospital, none of the participants were worried about receiving
telerehabilitation treatments. They were confident in the telerehabilitation team and considered that the
information provided throughout was clear regarding upcoming steps and appointments.
“They had told me that it would be this way (…). So being advised, you know, you’re ok.
(…) This way, being advised of the date, that the beginning of the treatments will be on
such and such a date. And having the little handouts that said which exercises to do, well
then ultimately, it was positive regardless. We say well we’re heading in, in the right
direction… to recuperate.” (participant 2)
Participants considered the telerehabilitation technical support team as part of team providing
therapy and they all expressed that they felt well supported by the entire team at all times.
4. Discussion
In this study, participants were interviewed regarding their telerehabilitation experience
post-surgery for a TKA as compared to their previous experience with rehabilitation services. Contrary
to the previous quantitative study conducted by our research team about satisfaction of patients
concerning telerehabilitation [23], the analyzed themes of the present qualitative research were
identified after the interviews and covered a larger spectrum of the patient’s experience. Although
participants never met their therapist face-to-face, they felt that their therapist was able to provide a
tailored exercise program, adjusting it to according to their ability, pain and fatigue. Participants also
felt that they developed a bond with their therapist and felt supported throughout their rehabilitation.
None of the participants regarded the videoconferencing technology or the space that it occupied as a
barrier to receiving quality rehabilitation services. Three participants did however express a preference
for combining telerehabilitation with more traditional in-person services.
All the participants in this study were confident that they participated in an exercise program that
was tailored to their needs. These findings differed from that of Cranen et al. [24], where patients
reported their perception of telerehabilitation after receiving an introduction to in-home
telerehabilitation through examples of potential exercise-based telerehabilitation services, without
actually experiencing it. They found that participants were concerned with the quality of the feedback
they would obtain from their therapist when interviewed regarding potential in-home telerehabilitation
services for chronic pain. In a subsequent study [25], patients who were randomly allocated to trying
out a web-based exercise program for a few minutes were more positive about ease-of-use and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4007
usefulness as compared to those who did not actually experience it. Hence, actually experiencing the
technology may be important when assessing the patient’s perception of the service.
Eriksson et al. [27] also reported on participants’ perception of telerehabilitation, after experiencing
it following a shoulder joint replacement. In their study, participants felt they received appropriate
feedback and support through actual telerehabilitation following a shoulder joint replacement. Thus,
the actual experience of telerehabilitation may impact on participants’ perceptions of the ability of a
therapist to provide adequate guidance and appropriate exercises from a distance.
An important component of the rehabilitation process is the relationship and trust that develops
between the patient and therapist. Crepeau and Garren [36] describe that the therapeutic relationship
that emerges between a therapist and a patient who meet in-person develops through the use of humor
to establish reciprocity, ordinary conversation to build the rapport and providing attention which
is viewed as caring. In our study, all the patients reported discussing elements of ordinary life
with their therapist, feeling that their therapist was attentive to their needs throughout, and that
a close relationship did in fact develop with their therapist, similar to the findings reported by
Eriksson et al. [27]. In contrast, in Cranen et al.’s study of potential telerehabilitation services, patients
felt that an emotional bond would not develop with their therapist, and that this could have a negative
impact on their rehabilitation outcome [24]. In fact, they expressed that telerehabilitation would make
them feel alienated and would be impersonal. Hence, actually experiencing telerehabilitation seems to
therefore alter the perception of the patient-therapist relationship that can develop [36].
Some participants in our study felt that telerehabilitation should be complemented by hands-on
therapy. Participants expressed that it would be beneficial in order to improve the physical assessment
of their knee, namely palpation and range of motion, and in particular when there is contradictory
information from different health professionals. The desire for some in-person contact with the
therapist was also reported in Cranen’s study [24]. However, in that study, participants considered
in-person contact to be important to ensure emotional support, whereas in our study it was viewed as
important to improve the physical assessment. The differences between these studies may be the result
of changes in perception when participants actually experience telerehabilitation, as mentioned
previously. It may also depend on the medical condition or on what patients are comparing the
telerehabilitation services to, as rehabilitation services can be provided in a variety of modes, including
in and out-patient settings and in-home services. Future studies could assess patients’ perceptions both
prior to and after undergoing therapy at a distance as well as assess whether there is indeed a benefit to
combining in-person and distance services. Combining in-person and distance services could be done
by having one scheduled visit with the therapist or other health professional at the clinical site or
patient’s home, such as midway through therapy, although the impact of this remains to be shown.
In general, patients consistently report more positive views of telehealth, including home telecare,
than do service providers [22]. Although most studies that examine patient satisfaction with telehealth,
including telerehabilitation, report high satisfaction rates, the main area of dissatisfaction reported is
generally with technical difficulties [23]. In this study, patients reported that if technical difficulties
arose, namely difficulties with establishing a connection between the home and clinical site, this did
not impact on their perception of the services received. Indeed, the communication was easily
reestablished or the appointment rescheduled. For these participants, this was not problematic as they
had limited mobility and were generally available at home. In the first few weeks following a TKA,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4008
patients have limited mobility and are greatly limiting their activities, mostly because of the pain [37,38].
This may vary for medical conditions where limited mobility is not a primary concern and/or where
the goal is to increase patients’ social participation including returning to work as soon as possible.
Study Limitations and Future Directions
This study provides a first portrait of telerehabilitation as experienced and perceived by patients
who have undergone a TKA. In order to obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon
and ensure that different perspectives would be included in the study, the sample included patients
with different characteristics that could impact their experiences and perceptions of telerehabilitation
(e.g., gender, age, work status, type of housing, living alone or not, internet access that was previously
installed or not, functional status prior to surgery). All the patients however received the same
telerehabilitation services for the same medical condition, had previously had in-person physiotherapy
services, and were recruited from the telerehabilitation arm of an RCT. A sample size of five patients
was used since data saturation was achieved regarding their experience with telerehabilitation, with no
new themes identified after the third interview; the latter two interviews provided additional examples
for themes which had previously been identified. This may in part be due to the similar intervention
received by the participants given the nature of their condition and the rigour of the RCT. While results
from a case study are not generalizable to all contexts, the extent to which findings from this study are
transferable to other settings is increased through a detailed description of the case and context,
allowing readers to extract the pertinent information to their setting [39]. This study provided insight
into patients’ perceptions based on their experiences. Future studies comparing perceptions of
patients receiving different modes of therapy, such as from a distance and in-person would help
better understand the role that prior experience plays in the way patients perceive the services they
receive. In addition, future studies should explore the relationship between clinical outcome and
patient perceptions.
5. Conclusions
While it is essential to ensure the efficacy of telerehabilitation interventions, such as through
clinical trials, a better understanding of patients’ perceptions with its use is crucial as they are the
end-users. This study showed that participants were satisfied with most of the aspects of their
experience, including the access to services, the relationship with therapist, the exercises program,
the technology and the support provide by the technical team. Given that there are few successfully
implemented home telerehabilitation programs, an analysis of patients’ perceptions, as reported here,
can be included as part of larger scale studies. Such analyses would provide essential information to
support the implementation and sustainability of in-home telerehabilitation programs.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants in this study, the Telage researchers (Hélène Moffet, Sylvie Nadeau,
Chantale Mérette, Patrick Boissy, Hélène Corriveau, François Marquis, François Cabana, Pierre
Ranger, Étienne Belzile, Pascale Larochelle, Ronald Dimentberg) and the research staff at the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4009
Research Center on Aging involved in this study. This research was supported by the Research Center
on Aging of Sherbrooke as well as post-doctoral grants (D.K.) from Réseau de formation
interdisciplinaire en recherche sur la santé et le vieillissement (FORMSAV) and the Quebec
Rehabilitation Research Network (REPAR).
Conflicts of Interest
This research was supported by the Research Center on Aging of Sherbrooke. All the authors report
no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coyte, P.; Young, W. Variation in Use of and Reinvestment in Home Care Services Following an
Acute Hospitalization, 1st ed.; The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Science in Ontario: Toronto,
Canada, 1997.
2. Pérodeau, G.; Côté, D. Le Virage Ambulatoire: Défis et Enjeux, 1st Ed.; Les presses de
l’Université Laval: Ste-Foy, Canada, 2002.
3. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Plan de santé et des Services Sociaux, Pour Faire
Les Bons Choix. Direction des communications du MSSS-Québec: Québec, Canada, 2002.
Available online: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2002/02-108.pdf
(accessed on 28 August 2013).
4. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Plan d’action 2005–2010—un défi de solidarité: Les
Services Aux aînés en Perte d’autonomie. Direction des communications du MSSS-Québec:
Québec, Canada, 2005. Available online: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/
2005/05-830-01.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2013).
5. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Chez Soi: Le Premier Choix. Précisions Pour
Favoriser l’implantation de la Politique de soutien à Domicile. Direction des communications du
MSSS-Québec: Québec, Canada, 2004. Available online: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/
acrobat/f/documentation/2002/02-704-01.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2013).
6. Latulipe-Richard, C. Regard approfondi sur sept grandes professions de la santé. Le Bloc Notes
2008. Available online: http://www.leblocnotes.ca/node/2457 (accessed on 28 August 2013).
7. Tran, D.; Hall, L.; Davis, A.; Landry, M.; Burnett, D.; Berg, K.; Jaglal, S. Identification of
recruitment and retention strategies for rehabilitation professionals in Ontario, Canada: Results
from expert panels. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2008, 8, 249, doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-249.
8. Hailey, D.; Roine, R.; Ohinmaa, A.; Dennett, L. Evidence on the Effectiveness of
Telerehabilitation Applications; Institute of Health Economics and Finnish Office for Health
Technology Assessment, Edmonton and Helsinki, Canada, 2010.
9. Russell, T.G. Physical rehabilitation using telemedicine. J. Telemed. Telecare 2007, 13
, 217–220.
10. Kaur, K.; Foducey, P.; Smith, L.; Scheideman-Miller, C. Organisational design and
implementation of a telerehabilitation system in Oklahoma. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2004, 6, 56–75.
11. Tousignant, M.; Boissy, P.; Corriveau, H.; Moffet, H. In home telerehabilitation for older adults
after discharge from an acute hospital or rehabilitation unit: A proof-of-concept study and costs
estimation. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2006, 1, 209–216.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4010
12. Theodoros, D.; Russell, T. Telerehabilitation: Current perspectives. Stud. Health Technol. Inform.
2008, 131, 191–209.
13. Pineau, G.; Moqadem, K.; St-Hilaire, C.; Levac, E.; Hamel, B. Télésanté: Lignes Directrices
Cliniques et Normes Technologiques en Téléréadpatation; Agences des technologies et des modes
d’intervention en santé. Gouvernement du Québec: Québec, Canada, 2006. Available online:
http://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/AETMIS/Rapports/Telesante/ETMIS2006_Vol2_No3.pdf
(accessed on 28 August 2013).
14. Simpson, L.A.; Miller, W.C.; Eng, J.J. Effect of stroke on fall rate, location and predictors:
A prospective comparison of older adults with and without stroke. PLoS One 2011, 6, e19431,
doi:. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019431.
15. Rogante, M.; Grigioni, M.; Cordella, D.; Giacomozzi, C. Ten years of telerehabilitation:
A literature overview of technologies and clinical applications. NeuroRehabilitation 2010, 27,
287–304.
16. Johansson, T.; Wild, C. Telerehabilitation in stroke care—A systematic review. J. Telemed.
Telecare 2011, 17, 1–6.
17. Kairy, D.; Lehoux, P.; Vincent, C.; Visintin, M. A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical
process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disabil. Rehabil. 2009,
31, 427–447.
18. Broens, T.H.; Huis in’t Veld, R.M.; Vollenbroek-Hutten, M.M.; Hermens, H.J.; van Halteren, A.T.;
Nieuwenhuis, L.J. Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: A literature study.
J. Telemed. Telecare 2007, 13, 303–309.
19. Finch, T.; Mort, M.; May, C.; Mair, F. Telecare: Perspectives on the changing role of patients and
citizens. J. Telemed. Telecare 2005, 11, 51–53.
20. Jackson, D.E.; McClean, S.I. Trends in telemedicine assessment indicate neglect of key criteria
for predicting success. JHOM 2012, 26, 508–523.
21. Mair, F.; Whitten, P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ
2000, 320, 1517–1520.
22. Mair, F.S.; Goldstein, P.; May, C.; Angus, R.; Shiels, C.; Hibbert, D.; O’Connor, J.; Boland, A.;
Roberts, C.; Haycox, A.; et al. Patient and provider perspectives on home telecare: Preliminary
results from a randomized controlled trial. J. Telemed. Telecare 2005, 11, 95–97.
23. Tousignant, M.; Boissy, P.; Moffet, H.; Corriveau, H.; Cabana, F.; Marquis, F.; Simard, J. Patients’
satisfaction of healthcare services and perception with in-home telerehabilitation and
physiotherapists’ satisfaction toward technology for post-knee arthroplasty: An embedded study
in a randomized trial. Telemed. J. E Health 2011, 17, 376–382.
24. Cranen, K.; Drossaert, C.H.; Brinkman, E.S.; Braakman-Jansen, A.L.; Ijzerman, M.J.;
Vollenbroek-Hutten, M.M. An exploration of chronic pain patients’ perceptions of home
telerehabilitation services. Health Expect. 2011, 15, 339–350.
25. Cranen, K.; Veld, R.H.; Ijzerman, M.; Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. Change of patients’ perceptions of
telemedicine after brief use. Telemed. J. E Health 2011, 17, 530–535.
26. Huis in’t Veld, R.; Kosterink, S.; Barbe, T.; Lindegard, A.; Marecek, T.; Vollenbroek-Hutten, M.
Relation between patient satisfaction, compliance and the clinical benefit of a teletreatment
application for chronic pain. J. Telemed. Telecare 2010, 16, 322–328.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10 4011
27. Eriksson, L.; Lindstrom, B.; Ekenberg, L. Patients’ experiences of telerehabilitation at home after
shoulder joint replacement. J. Telemed. Telecare 2011, 17, 25–30.
28. Piron, L; Turolla A; Tonin P; Piccione F; Lain L; Dam M. Satisfaction with care in post-stroke
patients undergoing a telerehabilitation programme at home. J. Telemed. Telecare 2008, 14,
257–260.
29. Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2003.
30. Tripp-Reimer, T.; Doebbeling, B. Qualitative perspectives in translational research. Worldviews
Evid. Based Nurs. 2004, 1, S65–S72.
31. Groenewald, T. A phenomenological research design illustrated. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2004, 3,
4: 1–26.
32. Moffet, H.; Collet, J.P.; Shapiro, S.H.; Paradis, G.; marquis, F.; Roy, L. Effectiveness of
intensive rehabilitation on functional ability and quality of life after first total knee arthroplasty:
A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 546–556.
33. Tousignant, M.; Boissy, B.; Corriveau, H.; Moffet, H.; Cabana, F. In-home telerehabilitation for
post-knee arthroplasty: A pilot study. Int. J. Telereabil. 2009, 1, 9–16.
34. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.; Davis, G.; Davis, F. User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Quaterly 2003, 27, 425–478.
35. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.;
Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
36. Crepeau, E.B.; Garren, K.R. I looked to her as a guide: The therapeutic relationship in hand
therapy. Disabil. Rehabil. 2011, 33, 872–881.
37. Bonnin, M.P.; Basiglini, L.; Archbold, H.A. What are the factors of residual pain after
uncomplicated tka? Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2011, 19, 1411–1417.
38. Brander, V.A.; Stulberg, S.D.; Adams, A.D.; Harden, R.N.; Bruehl, S.; Stanos, S.P.; Houle, T.
Predicting total knee replacement pain: A prospective, observational study. Clin. Orthop.
Relat. Res. 2003, 416, 27–36.
39. Guba, E.; Lincoln, Y. Fourth Generation Evaluation; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 1989.
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
