PURPOSE: To explore the underlying dimensions of the Barriers and Motivators Questionnaire that is used to assess barriers to and motivators of physical activity experienced by recipients of solid organ transplantation and thereby improve the application in research and clinical settings.METHOD: A cross-sectional study was performed in recipients of solid organ transplantation (n = 591; median (IQR) age = 59 (49; 66); 56% male). The multidimensional structure of the questionnaire was analyzed by exploratory principal component analysis. Cronbach's α was calculated to determine internal consistency of the entire questionnaire and individual components.RESULTS: The barriers scale had a Cronbach's α of 0.86 and was subdivided into four components; α of the corresponding subscales varied between 0.80 and 0.66. The motivator scale had an α of 0.91 and was subdivided into four components with an α between 0.88 to 0.70. Nine of the original barrier items and two motivator items were not included in the component structure.CONCLUSION: A four-dimensional structure for both the barriers and motivators scale of the questionnaire is supported. The use of the indicated subscales increases the usability in research and clinical settings compared to the overall scores and provide opportunities to identify modifiable constructs to be targeted in interventions. Implications for rehabilitation Organ transplant recipients are less active than the general population despite established health benefits of physical activity. A multidimensional structure is shown in the Barriers and Motivators Questionnaire, the use of the identified subscales increases applicability in research and clinical settings. The use of the questionnaire with its component structure in the clinical practice of a rehabilitation physician could result in a faster assessment of problem areas in daily practice and result in a higher degree of clarity as opposed to the use of the individual items of the questionnaire.
Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
