PTOTSLPCohortEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Digital technologies for pediatric rehabilitation: current access and use in the European Rehatech4child survey.

Johanne Mensah-Gourmel, Saranda Bekteshi, Sylvain Brochard and 6 others

PMID 39387853

WHAT IT FOUND

Most European rehabilitation professionals use digital technologies for children, but access is the main barrier.

Those with easier access used them far more frequently. Lack of funding and training were top concerns, while children's motivation was not.

Key findings

01Almost 70% of respondents reported using digital technologies for rehabilitation, with tablets and apps being the most used category.

02Ease of access was the main determinant of use, with professionals having easier access reporting significantly more frequent use.

03Lack of financial resources and training were the most cited barriers, whereas technophobia and lack of child motivation were not.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used convenience and snowball sampling, so the participants may not represent all European rehabilitation professionals. There was a selection bias towards respondents already interested in digital technologies, which might overestimate overall access and use. The survey was not evenly distributed across Europe, with Western Europe being overrepresented. The questionnaire was not previously validated.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the European Academy of Childhood Disability.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the high usage rates as evidence that these technologies are effective for clinical outcomes. This survey reports on availability and professional intent, not on patient improvement or efficacy.

Read it on PubMed →