Limits...
Differences between home-visit rehabilitation users and providers in their understanding of the content and subjective effects of rehabilitation practices.

Ohura T, Tsuyama T, Nakayama T - J Phys Ther Sci (2015)

Bottom Line: The McNemar's test was used for statistical analysis. [Results] Responses of 34 pairs meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed.Mean user age was 75.2 ± 9.2 years, and 58.8% (20/34) of respondents were female.Providers need to explain the aims of home-visit rehabilitation programs in a way that can be understood by users.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Care and Rehabilitation, Seijoh University, Japan ; Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Japan.

ABSTRACT
[Purpose] This study aimed to clarify differences between home-visit rehabilitation users and providers in their understanding of the content and subjective effects of this practice. [Subjects] The subjects of this study were home-visit rehabilitation users and providers. [Methods] Home-visit rehabilitation users and providers were given self-administered questionnaires regarding home-visit rehabilitation, such as the content and subjective effects. The McNemar's test was used for statistical analysis. [Results] Responses of 34 pairs meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Mean user age was 75.2 ± 9.2 years, and 58.8% (20/34) of respondents were female. In terms of home-visit rehabilitation content, users believed that the following 3 items had been "implemented" to a greater extent than that estimated by providers: paralysis improvement exercise, floor sitting and standing, and self-care activities. No significant differences in awareness were identified between users and providers regarding the maintenance/improvement effects of home-visit rehabilitation. [Conclusion] Users tend to consider that programs aimed at relieving symptoms and pain and improving mobility are being implemented to a greater extent than that considered by providers. Providers need to explain the aims of home-visit rehabilitation programs in a way that can be understood by users.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Participant selection process. Sixty-six pairs of clients and therapists were givenself-administered questionnaires. The final analysis utilized data from 34 pairs thatmet the inclusion criteria.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499965&req=5

fig_001: Participant selection process. Sixty-six pairs of clients and therapists were givenself-administered questionnaires. The final analysis utilized data from 34 pairs thatmet the inclusion criteria.

Mentions: Responses were received from 60 pairs of users and providers, of which responses of 34pairs from 3 home-visit rehabilitation centers met the inclusion criteria for analysis inthis study (Fig. 1Fig. 1.


Differences between home-visit rehabilitation users and providers in their understanding of the content and subjective effects of rehabilitation practices.

Ohura T, Tsuyama T, Nakayama T - J Phys Ther Sci (2015)

Participant selection process. Sixty-six pairs of clients and therapists were givenself-administered questionnaires. The final analysis utilized data from 34 pairs thatmet the inclusion criteria.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499965&req=5

fig_001: Participant selection process. Sixty-six pairs of clients and therapists were givenself-administered questionnaires. The final analysis utilized data from 34 pairs thatmet the inclusion criteria.
Mentions: Responses were received from 60 pairs of users and providers, of which responses of 34pairs from 3 home-visit rehabilitation centers met the inclusion criteria for analysis inthis study (Fig. 1Fig. 1.

Bottom Line: The McNemar's test was used for statistical analysis. [Results] Responses of 34 pairs meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed.Mean user age was 75.2 ± 9.2 years, and 58.8% (20/34) of respondents were female.Providers need to explain the aims of home-visit rehabilitation programs in a way that can be understood by users.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Care and Rehabilitation, Seijoh University, Japan ; Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Japan.

ABSTRACT
[Purpose] This study aimed to clarify differences between home-visit rehabilitation users and providers in their understanding of the content and subjective effects of this practice. [Subjects] The subjects of this study were home-visit rehabilitation users and providers. [Methods] Home-visit rehabilitation users and providers were given self-administered questionnaires regarding home-visit rehabilitation, such as the content and subjective effects. The McNemar's test was used for statistical analysis. [Results] Responses of 34 pairs meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Mean user age was 75.2 ± 9.2 years, and 58.8% (20/34) of respondents were female. In terms of home-visit rehabilitation content, users believed that the following 3 items had been "implemented" to a greater extent than that estimated by providers: paralysis improvement exercise, floor sitting and standing, and self-care activities. No significant differences in awareness were identified between users and providers regarding the maintenance/improvement effects of home-visit rehabilitation. [Conclusion] Users tend to consider that programs aimed at relieving symptoms and pain and improving mobility are being implemented to a greater extent than that considered by providers. Providers need to explain the aims of home-visit rehabilitation programs in a way that can be understood by users.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus