Journals / İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

Determining Technology Related Perspectives of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Faculty Students

Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji ile İlgili Bakış Açılarının Belirlenmesi

Pages
549–555
Publication Date
2022-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: According to this study, one in every two students encountered technological tools during education, and these experiences were concentrated in the final year.Raising the awareness of students about the technological tools from the early period through informational meetings, seminars, and curriculum arrangements will contribute to the training of contemporary physiotherapists.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of our study is to determine the perspectives of the students regarding the place and use of technological measurement and treatment tools in rehabilitation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th term students over the age of 18 who continued their education and volunteered to participate in the study were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: According to this study, one in every two students encountered technological tools during education, and these experiences were concentrated in the final year.Raising the awareness of students about the technological tools from the early period through informational meetings, seminars, and curriculum arrangements will contribute to the training of contemporary physiotherapists.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Fizyoterapi · öğrenci · rehabilitasyon

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study is to determine the perspectives of the students regarding the place and use of technological measurement and treatment tools in rehabilitation. Material and Method: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th term students over the age of 18 who continued their education and volunteered to participate in the study were included. Thirteen questions prepared by researchers were asked via Google Forms to evaluate the perspectives on the place and use of technological tools in rehabilitation. Students were asked about their encounters with technological evaluation and treatment tools during their education, and the advantages and disadvantages of these tools. Students’ ideas about the tools they want to experience and the impact of technological tools on employment were recorded. Students’ preferences between traditional and technological rehabilitation approaches were questioned. Results: Ninety students with an average age of 21.66 were participated in the study.48% of the students stated that they encountered technological tools during the evaluation and 46% during the treatment. 30% of these students were gathered in the 4th term.Robotic rehabilitation, gait analysis, and activity meters were frequently encountered technological approaches.While 65% of the students were of the opinion that technological approaches would not negatively affect employment, 81% of them stated that they would prefer technology-based rehabilitation. Conclusion: According to this study, one in every two students encountered technological tools during education, and these experiences were concentrated in the final year.Raising the awareness of students about the technological tools from the early period through informational meetings, seminars, and curriculum arrangements will contribute to the training of contemporary physiotherapists.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı öğrencilerin rehabilitasyonda teknolojik ölçüm ve tedavi araçlarının yeri ve kullanımı ilgili bakış açılarının belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 18 yaş üzerinde olan ve eğitimlerine devam eden, araştırmaya katılmaya gönüllü Dönem 1, 2, 3 ve 4 öğrencileri dahil edildi. Teknolojik araçların rehabilitasyondaki yeri ve kullanımına ilişkin bakış açılarını değerlendirmek için araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan 13 soru Google Forms üzerinden uygulandı. Öğrencilerin eğitimleri süresince teknolojik değerlendirme ve tedavi araçlarıyla karşılaşma durumları ile bu araçların avantaj ve dezavantajları soruldu. Öğrenciler tarafından deneyimlenmek istenen araçlar ve teknolojik araçların istihdama etkisi hakkında öğrencilerin fikirleri kaydedildi. Öğrencilerin geleneksel ve teknolojik rehabilitasyon yaklaşımları arasındaki tercihleri sorgulandı. Bulgular: Yaş ortalamaları 21,66 olan 90 öğrenci çalışmaya katıldı. Öğrencilerin %48’i değerlendirme ve %46’sı tedavi sırasında teknolojik araçlarla karşılaştıklarını belirtti. Bu öğrencilerin %30’u Dönem 4 grubunda toplanmıştı. Robotik rehabilitasyon, yürüme analizi ve aktivite ölçerlerin sık karşılaşılan teknolojik yaklaşımlar olduğu görüldü. Öğrencilerin %65’i teknolojik yaklaşımların istihdamı olumsuz etkilemeyeceği görüşündeyken, %81’i teknoloji temelli rehabilitasyonu tercih edeceklerini belirttiler. Sonuç: Çalışmaya göre her iki öğrenciden birinin eğitimleri süresince teknolojik araçlarla karşılaştığı ve bu deneyimlerin son sınıf derslerinde yoğunlaştığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Dönem bilgilendirme toplantıları, seminerler ve müfredat düzenlemeleri ile öğrencilerin erken dönemden itibaren teknolojik araçlar hakkındaki farkındalığını artırmak, çağa uyumlu fizyoterapistlerin yetişmesine katkıda bulunacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIZ, Ş., KIRDI, E. (2022). Determining Technology Related Perspectives of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Faculty Students. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 549–555. https://ajindex.com/articles/772641

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Rehabilitation: World Health Organization; 10.11.2021 [cited 24.03.2022]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation. Policy statement: Evidence based practice.: World Confederation for Physical Therapy; 2019 [cited 2022 24.03.2022]. Available from: https:// world.physio/policy/ps-ebp. What is physiotherapy?: World Confederation for Physical Therapy; [cited 24.03.2022]. Available from: https://world.physio/resources/what-is-physiotherapy.
  2. Kayabınar B, Kayabınar E. Nörolojik Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyonda Teknolojinin Kullanımı. Nevşehir Üniversitesi; 2021.
  3. Swinnen E, Lefeber N, Willaert W, De Neef F, Bruyndonckx L, Spooren A, et al. Motivation, expectations, and usability of a driven gait orthosis in stroke patients and their therapists. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017;24(4):299- 308. McCloy R, Stone R. Science, medicine, and the future. Virtual reality in surgery. BMJ. 2001;323(7318):912-5.
  4. Zabel S, Lockhart Z, Badiani N, Cornish J, Falzon L, Flis A, et al. Physiotherapy students’ perspectives on the use and implementation of exoskeletons as a rehabilitative technology in clinical settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020:1-8. Tack C. Artificial intelligence and machine learning| applications in musculoskeletal physiotherapy. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;39:164-9.
  5. Aggarwal D, Ploderer B, Hoang T, Vetere F, Bradford M. Physiotherapy over a distance: The use of wearable technology for video consultations in hospital settings. ACM Trans Comput Healthc. 2020;1(4):1-29.
  6. Burns DM, Leung N, Hardisty M, Whyne CM, Henry P, McLachlin S. Shoulder physiotherapy exercise recognition: machine learning the inertial signals from a smartwatch. Physiol Meas. 2018;39(7):075007. Belas Dos Santos M, Barros de Oliveira C, Dos Santos A, Garabello Pires C, Dylewski V, Arida RM. A comparative study of conventional physiotherapy versus robot-assisted gait training associated to physiotherapy in individuals with ataxia after atroke. Behav Neurol. 2018;2018:2892065. Hassett L, van den Berg M, Weber H, Chagpar S, Wong S, Rabie A, et al. Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial - description of device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(24):3454-60.
  7. Seron P, Oliveros MJ, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapy: a rapid overview. Phys Ther. 2021;101(6). Epub 2021/02/10. Erden NS. Yen