Background: Despite the growing importance of eHealth it is not consistently embedded in the curricula of functional exercise and physical therapy education. Insight in barriers and facilitators for embedding eHealth in education is required for the development of tailored strategies to implement eHealth in curricula. This study aims to identify barriers/facilitators perceived by teachers and students of functional exercise/physical therapy for uptake of eHealth in education. Methods: A qualitative study including six focus groups (two with teachers/four with students) was conducted to identify barriers/facilitators. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were identified, grouped and classified using a generally accepted framework for implementation including the following categories: innovation, individual teacher/student, social context, organizational context and political and economic factors. Results: Teachers (n = 11) and students (n = 24) of functional exercise/physical therapy faculties of two universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands participated in the focus groups. A total of 109 barriers/facilitators were identified during the focus groups. Most related to the Innovation category (n = 26), followed by the individual teacher (n = 22) and the organization (n = 20). Teachers and students identified similar barriers/facilitators for uptake of eHealth in curricula: e.g. unclear concept of eHealth, lack of quality and evidence for eHealth, (lack of) capabilities of students/teachers on how to use eHealth, negative/positive attitude of students/teachers towards eHealth. Conclusion: The successful uptake of eHealth in the curriculum of functional exercise/physical therapists needs a systematic multi-facetted approach considering the barriers and facilitators for uptake identified from the perspective of teachers and students. A relatively large amount of the identified barriers and facilitators were overlapping between teachers and students. Starting points for developing effective implementation strategies can potentially be found in those overlapping barriers and facilitators.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may be a relevant comorbidity when managing people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. It is unknown how often physiotherapists inquire about LUTS, and what the potential barriers and facilitators are to inquire about LUTS in this patient population.OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency of inquiring about LUTS, and to identify the barriers and facilitators among physiotherapists with and without additional pelvic health training to ask for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic girdle pain.DESIGN: A qualitative study using thematic analysis.METHODS: Through purposeful sampling, 29 primary care physiotherapists were interviewed (16 physiotherapists and 13 physiotherapists with additional pelvic health training). Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding facilitators and barriers.FINDINGS: The frequency of inquiring about LUTS was: 'never': 10%, 'sometimes': 38%, and 'always': 52%. Four barriers were identified: (1) lack of knowledge of the physiotherapist, (2) a standardised assessment approach which did not include LUTS, (3) patient expectations assumed by the physiotherapist, and (4) social, cultural and personal barriers. Three facilitators were identified: (1) communication skills and experience of the physiotherapist, (2) education and knowledge, and (3) interprofessional consultation and referral.CONCLUSION: The majority of physiotherapists surveyed in this study regularly asked for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic pain. For when not asked, the identified barriers seem modifiable with adequate training, knowledge and skill acquisition, and sound clinical reasoning.
"Purpose: This study aims to explore the perspectives of psychiatrists with lived experiences and what their considerations are upon integrating the personal into the professional realm. Design/methodology/approach: As part of a qualitative participatory research approach, participant observations during two years in peer supervision sessions (15 sessions with 8 psychiatrists with lived experiences), additional interviews as part of member feedback and a focus group were thematically analysed. Findings: Although the decision to become a psychiatrist was often related to personal experiences with mental distress and some feel the need to integrate the personal into the professional, the actual use of lived experiences appears still in its early stages of development. Findings reveal three main considerations related to the personal (3.1), professionality (3.2) and clinical relevance (3.3) comprising 11 facilitators and 9 barriers to harness lived experiences. Research limitations/implications: This study was conducted locally and there are no similar comparable studies known. It was small in its size due to its qualitative nature and with a homogeneous group and therefore may lack generalisability. Practical implications: Future directions to further overcome shame and stigma and discover the potential of lived experiences are directed to practice, education and research. Originality/value: Psychiatrists with lived experiences valued the integration of experiential knowledge into the professional realm, even though being still under development. The peer supervision setting in this study was experienced as a safe space to share personal experiences with vulnerability and suffering rather than a technical disclosure. It re-sensitised participants to their personal narratives, unleashing its demystifying, destigmatising and humanising potential."
