1. Occupational Therapists’ Views on Acquisition and Barriers to Use of High Tech Devices for Treatment of Upper Extremity Hemiparesis Secondary to Stroke Rachel Testi, OTS and Dorothy Farrar-Edwards, PhD Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS An estimated 4,800,000 people who experienced a stroke are alive after the accident 1. Since stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability in adults, there is a high demand for rehabilitation services. There is a new trend for use of high tech, but little is known if it is being integrated into practice. Previous researchers discussed current occupational therapy practice used for patients with UE impairments, but they did not learn about factors in decisions to acquire high tech devices or barriers to the usage 2, 3. Purposes: 1.To determine key factors impacting the decision to acquire and the institutional barriers to using high tech devices according to currently practicing OTs and COTAs in various rehab settings. 2.To explore if any differences exist between primary and secondary rehab facilities regarding high tech and low tech use. RESULTS CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to Gertrude Gaston Fund; our occupational therapist participants; Jocelyn Wack, OTS who helped with the completion of this study; and Dr. Dorothy Farrar-Edwards for her guidance. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Primary rehab facilities consider time needed to achieve treatment goals to be more important than secondary rehab facilities. Acquisition and institutional barrier factors are similar across rehab setting. More primary rehab facilities are integrating high tech devices; however, the majority of the devices and interventions are low tech. There are not many practicing therapists using high tech in the Madison area. Emerging body of evidence for use of high tech for occupational performance Therapists’ apprehension to using high tech devices for UE rehab is important to consider when researchers continue to develop new technology. Miscommunication between the clients’ wants and therapists’ beliefs could attribute to the issue. Technology developers who are on the cutting edge of new devices need to market not only to therapists, but also patients simultaneously so there will be less chance for ambiguity when deciding to acquire and use new technology. Educational programs need to integrate high tech devices into the program so new therapists graduate already acquainted with the technology. Participants: 39/54 currently practicing OTs and COTAs N = 31 with 2 years experience in rehab setting Measures: An adapted 25 question survey 4 including demographic information and questions regarding the factors affecting the acquisition, use, and barriers of high tech devices. Importance in decision to acquire high tech devices for your facility: Initial cost Patient care reimbursement Space required Significance of institutional barriers to the use of high tech devices: Problems with reimbursement Day-to-day logistics or difficulties (scheduling time for set up, needing additional staff) Negative impact on productivity Procedure: The survey was distributed to eight various settings offering occupational therapy rehabilitation services. The researchers collected, coded, and analyzed the data. Primary and secondary rehabilitation facilities did not differ in views on the importance: Having a sufficient caseload using the device, χ 2 (2, N = 31) =.68, p =.71 Efficacy data from sources other than vendor, χ 2 (3, N =31) = 2.29, p =.51 Amount of training required, χ 2 (2, N = 31) = 1.35, p =.51 However, primary rehabilitation facilities considered treatment time needed to achieve treatment goals to be more important than secondary rehabilitation facilities, χ 2 (2, N = 31) = 9.50, p =.009. Primary and secondary rehabilitation facilities did not differ regarding views: Problems with reimbursement, χ 2 (2, N =31) =.35, p =.90 Day-to-day logistics, χ 2 (2, N = 31) =.52, p =.77. Table 1. Mean ratings for acquisition scales. Table 2. Mean ratings for institutional barrier scales. Figure 1. Amount of device use in rehab settings. This figure illustrates percentages of each range of device usage displayed stacked. Table 2 Table 1