4.4 Article

How to improve eRehabilitation programs in stroke care? A focus group study to identify requirements of end-users

Journal

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0871-3

Keywords

Stroke; Telerehabilitation; Rehabilitation; Patients; Caregivers; Perspective; Requirements; Preferences; Co-design

Funding

  1. Stichting Innovatie Alliantie [2014-046PRO]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundA user-centered design approach for eHealth interventions improves their effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation. Nevertheless, insight into requirements of end-users (patients/informal caregivers and/or health professionals) for eRehabilitation is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify end-user requirements for a comprehensive eHealth program in stroke rehabilitation.MethodsEight focus groups were conducted to identify user requirements; six with patients/informal caregivers and two with health professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, team coordinators, speech therapist). The focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Direct content analysis was used to identify the end-user requirements for stroke eHealth interventions concerning three categories: accessibility, usability and content.ResultsIn total, 45 requirements for the accessibility, usability and content of a stroke eRehabilitation program emerged from the focus groups. Most requirements concerned content (27 requirements), followed by usability (12 requirements) and accessibility (6 requirements). Patients/informal caregivers and health professionals each identified 37 requirements, respectively, with 29 of them overlapping.ConclusionsRequirements between stroke patients/informal caregivers and health professionals differed on several aspects. Therefore, involving the perspectives of all end users in the design process of stroke eRehabilitation programs is needed to achieve a user-centered design.Trial registrationThe study was approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the Leiden University Medical Center [P15.281].

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available