ArticleDigital health
Perspectives of patients with osteoarthritis for using digital technology in rehabilitation at a public community centre in the Cape Metropole area: A qualitative study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the perspectives of people with osteoarthritis (OA) on the use of digital technology into their rehabilitation program, including their awareness, views on accessibility, affordability and willingness to accept digital modalities for rehabilitation delivery. Methods: A qualitative, descriptive design was conducted. Patients with OA who receive care at a public community rehabilitation centre in the Western Cape, South Africa were eligible to participants. Semi-structured interviewed were conducted and Atlas.ti 23 software was used for thematic analysis. Results: The findings showed that the participants had limited awareness and exposure to telerehabilitation (TR), along with minimal digital literacy and skills. They were sceptical about the effectiveness of TR and concerned about the inherent lack of physical interactions with health professionals. However, some acknowledged TR's potential benefits for accessibility, convenience, family involvement and long-term community health improvement. Participants were willing to learn more about TR. Conclusion: Considering the benefits of TR in lower resource settings such as South Africa, investment to increase awareness and patient education and training in TR may assist in enhancing access and quality of care. Resources dedicated to TR and management buy-in in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) is necessary to facilitate the fit-for-context roll-out of TR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.