Telerehabilitation Trends in Australian Physiotherapy and an Exploration of Factors That Influence Use After COVID-19 Restrictions: Qualitative Content Analysis.

Only 152 of 222 respondents were included; 58 were excluded for not being eligible and 12 for insufficient data. The sample was a small convenience sample recruited online, so physiotherapists with strong opinions may have been more likely to respond. Participants recalled telerehabilitation use before and during the pandemic several years later, so answers may be affected by memory. Caseload percentages were self-estimated by respondents, not verified from practice records. The survey combined telephone and video consultations, so it cannot show whether these modalities differ. Only Australian physiotherapists were sampled, so findings may not apply to countries with different funding, policy, or attitudes. Questions about confidence, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness after restrictions were misworded and may have asked about pandemic experiences instead, which could skew those ratings. No statistical tests were run for the plotted associations between caseload and confidence, satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, patient liking, or patient requests.

National Health and Medical Research Council grants and fellowships supported some authors; funders had no role in conduct, analysis, or reporting. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Do not read the drop to 14% of caseload as evidence that telerehabilitation is ineffective. The survey reported physiotherapists' self-estimated use and perceptions, not patient outcomes.