Background: The Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH) established its telerehabilitation service program in 2017. The program previously catered to patients in a partner rural community by providing teleconsultation and teletherapy over a distance. With the unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the program has expanded its service to outpatients previously managed face-to-face by the department, regardless of location. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the usability of the telerehabilitation service program at UP-PGH when it was expanded during the pandemic and to associate telerehabilitation usability ratings with the participant groups, demographic characteristics, and prior telemedicine knowledge and experience. Methods: This cross-sectional study involved the doctors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, patients, and patients’ carers, who participated in at least one telerehabilitation session and consented to respond to a digital survey thereafter. Total enumeration sampling of all telerehabilitation participants was employed. The study outcome was the usability of the expanded telerehabilitation program based on the System Usability Scale (SUS) benchmarked at 68. Descriptive and inferential statistics were done at a 95% confidence interval. The participants’ responses to open-ended questions regarding telerehabilitation experience and recommendations were also presented. Results: The participants consisted of 19 doctors, 11 therapists, 37 patients, and 74 caregivers. The majority of the participants were female and lived in urban areas. The primary online telerehabilitation platforms used were Viber™ and Zoom™. The mean of overall SUS scores was below average for health providers [doctors (mean = 61.71), therapists (mean = 67.73)]; and above average for end-users [patients (mean 74.56), and carers (mean = 71.89)]. There was a significant difference in the overall SUS scores between doctors (mean: 61.7) and patients (mean: 74.6), p<0.05. In terms of videoconferencing platform, participants reported significantly higher system usability for those who used either Zoom™ (mean: 75.0) or Viber™ (mean: 69.3), as compared to Google Meet™ (mean: 53.1), p<0.05. There was no significant difference in the overall SUS scores across sexes, places of residence, primary telerehabilitation techniques used, prior telemedicine knowledge, and experience. The majority viewed telerehabilitation as a valuable method to provide service during the pandemic, but they were mostly concerned with technical problems, particularly an unstable Internet connection. Conclusion The expanded telerehabilitation service program of the PGH was perceived as useful by patients and caregivers but not by the health providers. While the program succeeded in providing continued outpatient rehabilitation services during the pandemic, the challenges experienced by its telehealth providers must be investigated and addressed.
Telemedicine ; Telerehabilitation ; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical ; Delivery of Health Care