ICCH 2011: Videoconferencing kari_hagen
-
Upload
karihagen -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
284 -
download
1
description
Transcript of ICCH 2011: Videoconferencing kari_hagen
Videoconferencing vs. face-to-face meetings
in counseling for rare disorders
Kari Hagena,b, Rolf Wynna,c, Oddgeir Friborgd,e
aTelemedicine Research Group, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Norway
bFrambu Centre for Rare Disorders, Oslo, NorwaycDivision of Addiction and Specialized Psychiatry, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
dDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, NorwayePsychiatric Research Centre of North Norway, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
What are rare disorders?
• Prevalence ≤1:10.000
• In total less than 500 patients in Norway per disorder
• Complex and special needs from different services
Frambu – Norwegian NationalCentre for Rare Disorders
• Counseling on more than 100 rare disorders
• Familiy courses
• Summercamps
• Multidisciplinary ambulatory clinical conferences
Two types of clinical conferences at Frambu
Typical videoconference room
Aim of the study
To compare the two types of clinical conferences, videoconferencing vs. face-to-face meetings, in the ambulatory consulting service regarding the participants’ satisfaction
Hypothesis
Professionals and clients participating in videoconferences show the same degree of satisfaction with the meeting as those participating in face to face clinical conferences
How was the study conducted?
724 participants in clinical conferences 2008-2010
375 of the 724 partcipants answered a questionnaire (51.8%)
Factor analysis, comparative analyses
Methods
Analyses
Material
Who participated in the clinical consultations and answered the questionnaire?
Informants VC1 FtF2 Σ
Clients3 27 95 122
Local professionals 79 151 230
Professionals from Frambu 16 7 23
Sum 122 253 375
1VC = Videoconference2FtF = Face-to-face meeting3Clients (N = 122) were mainly parents (72 mothers, 41 fathers, 2 clients, 7 other relatives).
Questionnaire
• Two versions: clients and professionals
– Clients: on paper distributed by mail– Professionals: electronic questionnaire
• 35 items totally
• 12 items on user satisfaction and user activity
• 5 point Likert scale
12 items on user satisfaction and user activity
1. The atmosphere at the conference was relaxed2. Frambu’s professional contribution did not live up to my expectations
(Reversed) 3. More professionals from Frambu should have participated (Reversed)4. Frambu’s professionals contributed to solving the tasks we wanted5. The role of Frambu at the conference was unclear to me (Reversed) 6. I made comments and asked questions7. I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to8. The service providers from the Municipality and from Frambu
cooperated well at the conference9. We had a good dialogue at the meeting10. I felt uncomfortable (Reversed) 11. The break(s) contributed to valuable talks12. I am satisfied with the benefit of the conference
• The atmosphere at the conference was relaxed
• Frambu’s professional contribution did not live up to my expectations (Reversed)
• More professionals from Frambu should have participated (Reversed)
• Frambu’s professionals contributed to solving the tasks we wanted
• The role of Frambu at the conference was unclear to me (Reversed)
• I made comments and asked questions
• I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to
• The service providers from the Municipality and from Frambu cooperated well at the conference
• We had a good dialogue at the meeting
• I felt uncomfortable (Reversed)
• The break(s) contributed to valuable talks
• I am satisfied with the benefit of the conference
Factor analysis
User satisfaction
User activity
• I made comments and asked questions
• I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to
Main results:
Same degree of satisfaction in VC and FtF
User satisfaction
VC FtF
Number of participants (N)
94
224
Mean score 4.4 4.3#
SD 0.5 0.6
# No significant difference between videoconference and face to face conference
User activity
VC FtF
Number of participants (N)
103
249
Mean score 3.7 4.2***
SD 1.3 1.0
Main result:Significant higher degree of user activity in FtF than VC
*** p< 0.001compared to the VC
Discussion
• User satisfaction was independent of modality and role
– The hypothesis is supported
• User activity was influenced by modality
Discussion
• Other factors probably explaining the lower activity on VC
– Unfamiliar situation– Meeting structure & turn-taking– Training
• More professionals from the centre present in VC than FtF
Conclusion:VC and FtF as equal modalities
• Participants in VC are satisfied
– Actively involve local professionals
• Support & training
– Technical support– Communication skills– Educational program