Abstract
Authors' Responses to Peer Review of “Telerehabilitation for People With Physical Disabilities and Movement Impairment: A Survey of United Kingdom Practitioners”
Highlights
Response: Further detail on inclusion criteria has been added to this section: UK-based rehabilitation practitioners involved in rehabilitation were eligible to participate, regardless of their level of experience with telerehabilitation
“It was recognised that telerehabilitation may not be the best option for every person or case
Response: The following statement has been added to paragraph 5 of the Discussion: “ most patients will be seen by alternative means, there is a https://med.jmirx.org/2022/1/e35845
Summary
Response: The questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. This has been added to the Design and Development section. Response: Table 1 is the only table that contains some values with 5 or fewer respondents. Response: Examples of organizational and governance obstacles have been added to the Perceived Benefits and Obstacles section (eg, organizations recommending face-to-face consultations or prohibiting the use of certain technologies). Response: Numbers and percentages have been added to the text and we feel this greatly improves readability. It is reasonable to assume that online rehabilitation interventions are here to stay albeit to a different extent than during the pandemic The manuscript as it stands reads well; the quality can be further improved by considering the following. Response: We believe that adding interventions would imply that the survey was only about telerehabilitation interventions and would not accurately describe the content of the paper. We explored much more than this in the survey (including experiences, attitudes, training, and assessments, interventions)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
