672
B. Brouns et al.
cupational and speech therapists should be included.
In conclusion, barriers/facilitators and their associa-
tion with willingness to use eRehabilitation differ among
end-users. This implies that, during the development and
implementation of eRehabilitation, all end-users must
be involved to ensure that eRehabilitation suits users’
needs and that their willingness to use it is optimized.
Important aspects that should be taken into account
during both the development and implementation in-
clude motivation to change, feasibility and knowledge
about using eRehabilitation. Since beneficial outcomes
for patients are important factors in willingness to use
eRehabilitation, future research should assess the ef-
fectiveness of stroke eRehabilitation, preferably in the
context of a blended care strategy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the patients, their informal
caregivers, and healthcare professionals who participated in
the survey.
Funding: This project was supported financially by Stichting
Innovatie Alliantie (grant 2014-046PRO).
REFERENCES
1. Donnan GA, Fisher M, Macleod M, Davis SM. Stroke. Lancet
2008; 371: 1612–1623.
2. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation.
Lancet 2011; 377: 1693–1702.
3. Stroke Unit Trailists’ Collaboration. Organised inpatient
(stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev 2013; 9: 1–63.
4. Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD,
Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)
for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010:
a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2197–2223.
5. Krpic A, Savanovic A, Cikajlo I. Telerehabilitation: remote
multimedia-supported assistance and mobile monitoring of
balance training outcomes can facilitate the clinical staff’s
effort. Int J Rehabil Res 2013; 36: 162–171.
6. Laver KE, Schoene D, Crotty M, George S, Lannin NA, Sher-
rington C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2013; 16: CD010255.
7. Schwamm LH, Chumbler N, Brown E, Fonarow GC, Berube
D, Nystrom K, et al. Recommendations for the implemen-
tation of telehealth in cardiovascular and stroke care: a
policy statement from the American Heart Association.
Circulation 2017; 135: 24–44.
8. Johansson T, Wild C. Telerehabilitation in stroke care – a
systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2011; 17: 1–6.
9. Karasu AU, Batur EB, Karatas GK. Effectiveness of Wii-
based rehabilitation in stroke: a randomized controlled
study. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50: 406–412.
10. Russel TG. Telerehabilitation: a coming of age. Austral J
Physiother 2009; 55: 5–6.
11. Pugliese M, Ramsay T, Johnson D, Dowlatshahi D. Mobile
tablet-based therapies following stroke: a systematic
scoping review of administrative methods and patient
experiences. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191566
12. Winters JM. Telerehabilitation research: emerging oppor-
tunities. Ann Rev Biomed Eng 2002; 4: 287–320.
13. White J, Janssen H, Jordan L, Pollack M. Tablet technology
during stroke recovery: a survivor’s perspective. Disabil
Rehabil 2015; 37: 1186–1192.
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm
14. van Velsen L, Wildevuur S, Flierman I, Van Schooten B,
Tabak M, Hermens H. Trust in telemedicine portals for
rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with
patients and healthcare professionals. BMC Med Inform
Decis Mak 2016; 16: 11
15. Edgar MC, Monsees S, Rhebergen J, Waring J, Van der
Star T, Eng JJ, et al. Telerehabilitation in stroke recovery:
a survey on access and willingness to use low-cost consu-
mer technologies. Telemed J E Health 2017; 23: 421–429.
16. Hochstenbach-Waelen A, Seelen HA. Embracing change:
practical and theoretical considerations for successful im-
plementation of technology assisting upper limb training
in stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012; 9: 52–64.
17. Davoody N, Hagglund M. Care professionals’ perceived
usefulness of eHealth for post-discharge stroke patients.
Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 228: 589–593.
18. Warland A, Paraskevopoulos I, Tsekleves E, Ryan J, No-
wicky A, Griscti J, et al. The feasibility, acceptability and
preliminary efficacy of a low-cost, virtual-reality based,
upper-limb stroke rehabilitation device: a mixed methods
study. Disabil Rehabil 2018; 12: 1–16.
19. Wachter RM. Making IT work: harnessing the power of
health information technology to improve care in Eng-
land. 2016. [Cited 2019 Aug 22]. Available from: https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/using-information-
technology-to-improve-the-nhs.
20. Brouns B, Meesters JJL, Wentink MM, de Kloet AJ, Arwert HJ,
Vliet Vlieland TPM, et al. Why the uptake of eRehabilitation
programs in stroke care is so difficult – a focus group study
in the Netherlands. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 133–144
21. McCluskey A, Vratsistas-Curto A, Schurr K. Barriers and
enablers to implementing multiple stroke guideline recom-
mendations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res
2013; 13: 323–336.
22. Tyagi S, Lim DS, Ho WH, Koh YQ, Cai V, Koh GC, et al.
Acceptance of tele-rehabilitation by stroke patients: per-
ceived barriers and facilitators. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
2018; 99: 2472–2477.
23. Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, Buttar V, Ranson Q,
Goertzen D. What factors determine therapists’ acceptance
of new technologies for rehabilitation – a study using the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UT-
AUT). Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37: 447–455.
24. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and
incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J
Aust 2004; 18: 57–60.
25. Visser O, Hulscher MEJL, Antonise-Kamp L, Akkermans
R, van der Velden K, Ruiter RAC, et al. Assessing deter-
minants of the intention to accept a pertussis cocooning
vaccination: a survey among healthcare workers in ma-
ternity and paediatric care. Vaccine 2018; 36: 736–743.
26. Voorn VM, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Wentink MM, Kap-
tein AA, Koopman-van Gemert AW, So-Osman C, et al.
Perceived barriers among physicians for stopping non-
cost-effective blood-saving measures in total hip and total
knee arthroplasties. Transfusion 2014; 54: 2598–2607.
27. Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. 2nd edn.
London: Routledge; 1999.
28. Stevens J.P. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 5th
edn. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2009,
p. 325–394.
29. Palmcrantz S, Borg J, Sommerfeld D, Plantin J, Wall A,
Ehn M, et al. An interactive distance solution for stroke
rehabilitation in the home setting – a feasibility study.
Inform Health Soc Care 2017; 42: 303–320.
30. Blacquiere D, Lindsay MP, Foley N, Taralson C, Alcock S,
Balg C, et al. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommen-
dations: telestroke best practice guidelines update 2017.
Int J Stroke 2017; 12: 886–895.
31. Pugliese M, Johnson D, Dowlatshahi D, Ramsay T. Mobile
tablet-based therapies following stroke: a systematic
scoping review protocol of attempted interventions and
the challenges encountered. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 219–226.
32. Saywell N, Taylor D. Focus group insights assist trial design