Usage, Attitudes, Facilitators, and Barriers Toward Digital Health Technologies in Musculoskeletal Care: Survey Among Primary Care Physiotherapists in Norway
Lars Martinsen,Nina Østerås,Tuva Moseng,Anne Therese Tveter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/54116
2024-09-16
Abstract:Background: Work burden increases for physiotherapists in the primary health care sector as the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) increases. Digital health technologies (DHTs) are proposed as a viable solution to secure the sustainability of the health care system and have shown promising results in a range of conditions. However, little is known about use of DHTs among physiotherapists in the primary health care sector in Norway. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the use of and attitudes toward DHTs among physiotherapists treating patients with MSDs in primary care, and potential facilitators or barriers for adopting DHTs in clinical practice. Methods: An author-developed web-based questionnaire was distributed to physiotherapists in all Norwegian municipalities in March 2023. The questionnaire included items regarding use of technologies, attitudes, suitability, and factors influencing adoption of DHT. Suitability and agreement on statements were scored on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0=very unsuitable or strongly disagree, 10=very suitable or strongly agree). Differences across employment sites and users versus nonusers of DHT were analyzed using the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Approximately 5000 physiotherapists were invited to participate, of which 6.8% (338) completed the questionnaire. A total of 46.2% (156/338) offered DHTs in their practice, of which 53.2% (83/156) used it on a weekly basis, mostly telephone consultations (105/156, 67.3%). A higher proportion of physiotherapists in private practice offered DHT compared with those employed by municipalities (95/170, 55.9% vs 61/168, 36.3%; P<.001). A majority (272/335, 81.2%) were positive about recommending DHTs to their patients. Suitability of DHTs in physiotherapy was rated an average of 6 (SD 2.1). Apps for smartphones or tablets were rated most suitable (mean rating 6.8, SD 2.4). The most frequently reported advantages were flexibility in how physiotherapy is offered (278/338, 82.3%) and reduced travel time for the patient (235/338, 70%). The highest rated disadvantages were limited scope for physical examination (252/338, 74.6%) and difficulty in building rapport with the patient (227/338, 67.2%). The main facilitators and barriers included a functioning (median rating 10, IQR 8-10) or lack of functioning (median rating 9, IQR 8-10) internet connection, respectively. Lack of training in DHTs was prominent regarding evaluation, diagnosing, and treatment (median rating 0, IQR 0-2), with minor, but significant, differences between nonusers and users (median rating 0, IQR 0-1 vs median rating 1, IQR 0-4); P<.001). Conclusions: Physiotherapists in Norwegian primary care treating patients with MSDs are positive about using DHTs, and almost 50% (156/338) have adopted them in clinical practice. Concerns are related to lack of a physical examination and technical aspects. Training in the use of DHTs should be addressed in implementation processes.