Show source-provided references
1. Telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patients and Physical Therapists’ Experiences
10.1159/000523775 ↗3. Davis, F. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems—Theory and Results, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
4. Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model
10.1177/1460458211435425 ↗5. Carrera, A., Zoccarato, F., Mazzeo, M., Lettieri, E., Toletti, G., Bertoli, S., and Castelnuovo, G. (2023). What drives patients’ acceptance of Digital Therapeutics? Establishing a new framework to measure the interplay between rational and institutional factors. BMC Health Serv. Res., 23.
10.1186/s12913-023-09090-7 ↗6. Well, if the kids can do it, I can do it’: Older rehabilitation patients’ experiences of telerehabilitation
10.1111/hex.12443 ↗7. Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapist Practice: An Umbrella and Mapping Review with Meta–Meta-Analysis
10.1093/ptj/pzab075 ↗8. Yosef, A.B., Jacobs, J.M., Shenkar, S., Shames, J., Schwartz, I., Doryon, Y., Naveh, Y., Khalailh, F., Berrous, S., and Gilboa, Y. (2019). Activity Performance, Participation, and Quality of Life Among Adults in the Chronic Stage After Acquired Brain Injury—The Feasibility of an Occupation-Based Telerehabilitation Intervention. Front. Neurol., 10.
10.3389/fneur.2019.01247 ↗12. Stephenson, A., Howes, S., Murphy, P.J., Deutsch, J.E., Stokes, M., Pedlow, K., and McDonough, S.M. (2022). Factors influencing the delivery of telerehabilitation for stroke: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 17.
10.1371/journal.pone.0265828 ↗13. (2019). Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems (Standard No. ISO 9241-210:2019).
14. Schreier, G., Pfeifer, B., Baumgartner, M., and Hayn, D. (2022). Design Requirements for a (Tele-) Rehabilitation Platform: Results from a Participatory Process. Proceedings of the 16th Health Informatics Meets Digital Health Conference, IOS Press.
15. Pfeifer, B., Schreier, G., Baumgartner, M., and Hayn, D. (2023). Successfully Implementing a Clinically-Used Therapy Device in a Home-Therapy Setting. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, IOS Press.
10.3233/SHTI301 ↗16. Franke, T., Attig, C., and Wessel, D. (2024, August 09). Assessing Affinity for Technology Interaction—The Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. Scale Description—English and German Scale Version. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318745431_Assessing_Affinity_for_Technology_Interaction_-_The_Affinity_for_Technology_Interaction_ATI_Scale_Scale_Description_-_English_and_German_Scale_Version?channel=doi&linkId=597b1fbd0f7e9b0469ec6ff3&showFulltext=true.
18. Kothgassner, O.D., Felnhofer, A., Hauk, N., Kastenhofer, E., Gomm, J., and Kryspin-Exner, I. (2024, August 09). TUI. Technology Usage Inventory. 2012. Available online: https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/allgemeine_downloads/thematische%20programme/programmdokumente/tui_manual.pdf.
19. Telerehabilitation in response to constrained physical distance: An opportunity to rethink neurorehabilitative routines
10.1007/s00415-021-10397-w ↗20. Competencies required by patients and health professionals regarding telerehabilitation: A scoping review
10.1177/20552076231218841 ↗21. Effectiveness and feasibility of telerehabilitation in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063961 ↗22. Physical therapists and public perceptions of telerehabilitation: An online open survey on acceptability, preferences, and needs
10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100464 ↗