Search

To investigate determinants of willingness to adopt telerehabilitation, willingness of technology use, core affect regarding using telerehabilitation, and digital competencies in rehabilitation professionals in Austria and Germany before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional paper-based and online survey was conducted before and during COVID-19, respectively, with three cohorts of rehabilitation professionals. Outcomes were the willingness to adopt telerehabilitation evaluated using the extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology; willingness of technology use using the short scale for assessing the willingness of technology use; digital competencies and core affect using the Digital Competence Framework and semantic differential, respectively. Multivariate ordinal regression analysis was performed to determine predictors. Included were 603 rehabilitation professionals. Analysis revealed differences between Austria and Germany and before and during the pandemic for most outcomes. German residency, the pandemic, and a higher educational level were most important predictors of higher willingness to adopt telerehabilitation, willingness of technology use, digital competencies, and positive core affect. The pandemic increased most aspects of willingness to adopt telerehabilitation, willingness of technology use, digital competencies, and positive core affect. Results confirm that rehabilitation professionals with higher degrees are more prone to adopt innovations in healthcare.Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021464) The willingness to adopt telerehabilitation is associated with external factors increasing the need for alternative rehabilitation delivery, such as COVID-19, and with financial facilitators, such as reimbursement. As the willingness to adopt telerehabilitation is higher among speech and language therapists and dietitians, efforts are necessary to enhance its use in physiotherapists and occupational therapists. As a higher willingness to adopt telerehabilitation was observed in younger rehabilitation professionals and those with higher education, increasing the importance of telerehabilitation in education curricula and further knowledge transfer into practice for those already working in the field seems necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: It has been argued that social security disability assessments should directly assess claimants’ work capacity, rather than relying on proxies such as on functioning. However, there is little academic discussion of how such assessments could be conducted. Method: The article presents an account of different models of direct disability assessments based on case studies of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, utilising over 150 documents and 40 expert interviews. Results: Three models of direct work disability assessments can be observed: (i) structured assessment, which measures the functional demands of jobs across the national economy and compares these to claimants’ functional capacities; (ii) demonstrated assessment, which looks at claimants’ actual experiences in the labour market and infers a lack of work capacity from the failure of a concerned rehabilitation attempt; and (iii) expert assessment, based on the judgement of skilled professionals. Conclusions: Direct disability assessment within social security is not just theoretically desirable, but can be implemented in practice. We have shown that there are three distinct ways that this can be done, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed to clarify the costs, validity/legitimacy, and consequences of these different models. Implications for rehabilitation: It has recently been argued that social security disability assessments should directly assess work capacity rather than simply assessing functioning - but we have no understanding about how this can be done in practice. Based on case studies of nine countries, we show that direct disability assessment can be implemented, and argue that there are three different ways of doing it. These are “demonstrated assessment” (using claimants’ experiences in the labour market), “structured assessment” (matching functional requirements to workplace demands), and “expert assessment” (the judgement of skilled professionals). While it is possible to implement a direct assessment of work capacity for social security benefits, further research is necessary to understand how best to maximise validity, legitimacy, and cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]