Telerehabilitation for mild traumatic brain injury patients: patients’ preferences in Aotearoa New Zealand

Quy Lam; Lynne Clay; Denise Taylor; Paul Brown

doi:10.1071/HC24158

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Online Early

Telerehabilitation for mild traumatic brain injury patients: patients’ preferences in Aotearoa New Zealand

Quy Lam ¹ , Lynne Clay ² , Denise Taylor ² , Paul Brown

² ³ ^*

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

¹ Department of Economics, University of California, Merced, 5200 N Lake Avenue, Merced, CA 92006, USA.

² Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag Auckland 1142, New Zealand.

³ Health Sciences Research Institute, University of California, Merced, 5200 N Lake Avenue, Merced, CA 95343, USA.

^* Correspondence to: pbrown3@ucmerced.edu

Handling Editor: Felicity Goodyear-Smith

Journal of Primary Health Care https://doi.org/10.1071/HC24158

Submitted: 30 October 2024 Accepted: 9 March 2025 Published: 1 April 2025

© 2025 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Introduction

Telerehabilitation offers the potential to improve access to specialty rehabilitation for people with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and reduce health disparities for those living in geographically rural/remote areas. The success of telerehabilitation depends on the extent to which the service meets the patient’s needs and their ability to access the services remotely.

Aim

This study aims to help Healthcare practitioners and government agencies develop effective and patient-centred telerehabilitation services for mTBI patients.

Methods

Participants were mTBI survivors or close acquaintances of a mTBI patient. The survey involved asking participants to choose between hypothetical rehabilitation scenarios with varying attributes, including the session duration (long or short), location (clinic-based vs telerehabilitation), therapist involvement, inclusion of online resources, associated cost and community COVID-19 threats.

Results

The results suggest that there was a preference for rehabilitation rather than no rehabilitation, with an overall preference for long telerehabilitation sessions. The results differed somewhat between the groups, with people living with a mTBI being more positive towards clinic-based sessions and less impacted by the threat of COVID-19. The results are consistent with the proposition that individuals prefer telerehabilitation appointments. Although preferences differed between groups, the preference for telerehabilitation persisted, driven by time and cost considerations associated with in-person visits.

Discussion

The findings suggest that mTBI patients value rehabilitation services, and that Healthcare practitioners and government agencies should consider offering long telerehabilitation sessions. Further research is warranted to assess the efficacy and feasibility of implementing telerehabilitation programs in clinical settings for mTBI patients.

Keywords: Cost, COVID-19, discrete choice experiment, Health economics, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), patient preferences, telehealth, telerehabilitation.

References

1 Dewan MC, Rattani A, Gupta S, et al. Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg 2019; 130: 1080-1097.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

2 Feigin VL, Theadom A, Barker-Collo S, et al. Incidence of traumatic brain injury in New Zealand: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12: 53-64.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

3 Theadom A, Parag V, Dowell T, et al. Persistent problems 1 year after mild traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal population study in New Zealand. Brit J Gen Pract 2016; 66: E16-E23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

4 Theadom A, Starkey N, Barker-Collo S, et al. Population-based cohort study of the impacts of mild traumatic brain injury in adults four years post-injury. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191655.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

5 Theadom A, Barker-Collo S, Jones K, et al. Work limitations 4 years after mild traumatic brain injury: a cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2017; 98: 1560-1566.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

6 Snell DL, Martin R, Surgenor LJ, et al. What’s wrong with me? Seeking a coherent understanding of recovery after mild traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 1968-1975.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

7 Silverberg ND, Iaccarino MA, Panenka WJ, et al. Management of concussion and mild traumatic brain injury: a synthesis of practice guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2020; 101: 382-393.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

8 Madhok DY, Rodriguez RM, Barber J, et al. Outcomes in patients with mild traumatic brain injury without acute intracranial traumatic injury. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5: e2223245.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

9 Womble MN, Reynolds E, Kissinger-Knox A, et al. The emerging role of telehealth for concussion clinical care during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2022; 37: E49-E54.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

10 Signal N, Martin T, Leys A, et al. Implementation of telerehabilitation in response to COVID-19: lessons learnt from neurorehabilitation clinical practice and education. N Z J Physiother 2020; 48: 117-126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

11 Wikaire E, Harwood M, Wikaire-Mackey K, et al. Reducing healthcare inequities for Maori using telehealth during COVID-19. N Z Med J 2022; 135: 112-119.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |

12 Gurney J, Fraser L, Ikihele A, et al. Telehealth as a tool for equity: pros, cons and recommendations. N Z Med J 2021; 111-115.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |

13 Tenforde AS, Hefner JE, Kodish-Wachs JE, et al. Telehealth in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a narrative review. PM R 2017; 9: S51-S58.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

14 Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR, et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: a systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. J Telemed Telecare 2023; 29: 669-684.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

15 Suso-Martí L, La Touche R, Herranz-Gómez A, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapist practice: an umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis. Phys Ther 2021; 101: pzab075.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

16 Martin R, Mandrusiak A, Lang R, et al. A telehealth curriculum: a pre-post study of physiotherapy students’ perceived knowledge, self-efficacy and intentions for future use. Focus Health Prof Ed 2022; 23: 56-72.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

17 Coulibaly LP, Poder TG, Tousignant M. Attributes underlying patient choice for telerehabilitation treatment: a mixed-methods systematic review to support a discrete choice experiment study design. Int J Health Policy Manag 2022; 11: 1991-2002.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

18 Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Shulver W, et al. Investigating the preferences of older people for telehealth as a new model of health care service delivery: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 301-313.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

19 Radic M, Haugk S, Radic D. Willingness to pay for telemedicine solutions: an empirical-analysis using the example of a platform for multimorbid patients. Gesundh Qual 2019; 24: 229-236.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

20 Mckibben NS, Marchand LS, Demyanovich HK, et al. Patient preferences for physical therapy programs after a lower extremity fracture: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e072583.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

21 Deidda M, Meleddu M, Pulina M. Potential users’ preferences towards cardiac telemedicine: a discrete choice experiment investigation in Sardinia. Health Policy Techn 2018; 7: 125-130.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

22 Chudner I, Drach-Zahavy A, Karkabi K. Choosing video instead of in-clinic consultations in primary care in Israel: discrete choice experiment among key stakeholders-patients, primary care physicians, and policy makers. Value Health 2019; 22: 1187-1196.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

23 Ahn J, Shin J, Lee J, et al. Consumer preferences for telemedicine devices and services in South Korea. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20: 168-174.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

24 Park H, Chon Y, Lee J, et al. Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J E Health 2011; 17: 442-451.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

25 Cranen K, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, et al. Toward patient-centered telerehabilitation design: understanding chronic pain patients’ preferences for web-based exercise telerehabilitation using a discrete choice experiment. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

26 Snoswell CL, Whitty JA, Caffery LJ, et al. Direct-to-consumer mobile teledermoscopy for skin cancer screening: preliminary results demonstrating willingness-to-pay in Australia. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24: 683-689.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

27 Spinks J, Janda M, Soyer HP, et al. Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early. J Telemed Telecare 2016; 22: 39-46.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

28 Phillips EA, Himmler S, Schreyögg J. Preferences of psychotherapists for blended care in Germany: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Psychiatry 2022; 22: 112.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

29 Phillips EA, Himmler SF, Schreyögg J. Preferences for e-mental health interventions in Germany: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2021; 24: 421-430.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

30 Chang J, Savage SJ, Waldman DM. Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017; 15: 491-500.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

31 Iqbal MH. Telemedicine: an innovative twist to primary health care in rural Bangladesh. J Prim Care Communit 2020; 11: 2150132720950519.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

32 Leigh S, Ashall-Payne L, Andrews T. Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of mobile health among health care professionals from the United Kingdom: discrete choice experiment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8: e17704.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

33 Snoswell CL, Smith AC, Page M, et al. Patient preferences for specialist outpatient video consultations: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare 2023; 29: 707-715.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

34 von Wedel P, Hagist C, Saunders K. The digitalization of the patient-physician relationship in Germany: a discrete choice based analysis of patients preferences for digital health services. Gesundh Qual 2018; 23: 142-149.
| Google Scholar |

35 Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Heal 2013; 16(1): 3-13.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

36 Fraley C, Raftery AE. How many clusters? Which clustering method? Answers via model-based cluster analysis. Comput J 1998; 41: 578-588.
| Google Scholar |

37 Greene WH. Econometric analysis. Pearson Education India; 2003.

38 Gilbert AW, Mentzakis E, May CR, et al. Patient preferences for use of virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Serv Res Po 2022; 27: 62-73.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |