Investigating the Acceptance and Implementation Conditions of Telerehabilitation in Germany Among Patients and Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Interview Study.
Monica-Diana Podar, Susanne Stampa, Oliver Razum and 1 others
PMID 40750075WHAT IT FOUND
Patients accepted telerehabilitation for flexibility but struggled to keep up the routine without therapist monitoring.
Staff worried about resources and costs. Both groups agreed it cannot replace face-to-face care, with hybrid models seen as the necessary solution.
Key findings
01Patients valued flexibility but found maintaining a routine difficult without external monitoring, whereas staff prioritized resource efficiency and raised concerns about costs and technical barriers.
02Both patients and health care professionals concluded that telerehabilitation is not suitable as a sole therapy, identifying hybrid approaches as the necessary solution for certain diagnoses.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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.
What it does not show
The sample was small (9 patients, 8 professionals) and recruited from centers that already valued digitalization, likely introducing selection bias. The patient sample was predominantly female, tech-savvy, and satisfied with telerehabilitation; those who refused or discontinued the service were not interviewed. The health care professional sample was heavily skewed toward neurology (62%) and therapists (75%), limiting transferability to other disciplines or settings. The study aimed for 20 interviews but achieved thematic saturation with fewer, meaning negative or dissenting experiences may be underrepresented.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was part of a larger project examining telerehabilitation acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the high acceptance rates as evidence that telerehabilitation is effective or suitable for all patients. The study only interviewed people who had already used and largely accepted the service, and both patients and staff explicitly stated it cannot replace face-to-face care.