Factors that facilitate or hinder the use of the facial rehabilitation webtool MEPP 2.0: a comparative study in the Quebecer health system

Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC health services research 2024-10, Vol.24 (1), p.1256-13, Article 1256
Main Authors: Martineau, Sarah, Barbeau, Jacinthe, Paquin, Alyssia, Marcotte, Karine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Augmented reality
Clinical medicine
Consent
Cross-Over Studies
E-health
Embodiment
Facial Paralysis - rehabilitation
Facial rehabilitation
Female
Health services
Humans
Internet
Male
MEPP
Middle Aged
Mirror therapy
Peripheral facial palsy
Quebec
Questionnaires
Rehabilitation
Self evaluation
Technology
User experience
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version. Forty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model. Overall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p 
ISSN:1472-6963
1472-6963
DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2