icch 2011: videoconferencing kari_hagen

Videoconferencing vs. face-to-face meetings

in counseling for rare disorders

Kari Hagena,b, Rolf Wynna,c, Oddgeir Friborgd,e

aTelemedicine Research Group, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Norway

bFrambu Centre for Rare Disorders, Oslo, NorwaycDivision of Addiction and Specialized Psychiatry, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway

dDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, NorwayePsychiatric Research Centre of North Norway, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway

What are rare disorders?

• Prevalence ≤1:10.000

• In total less than 500 patients in Norway per disorder

• Complex and special needs from different services

Frambu – Norwegian NationalCentre for Rare Disorders

• Counseling on more than 100 rare disorders

• Familiy courses

• Summercamps

• Multidisciplinary ambulatory clinical conferences

Two types of clinical conferences at Frambu

Typical videoconference room

Aim of the study

To compare the two types of clinical conferences, videoconferencing vs. face-to-face meetings, in the ambulatory consulting service regarding the participants’ satisfaction

Hypothesis

Professionals and clients participating in videoconferences show the same degree of satisfaction with the meeting as those participating in face to face clinical conferences

How was the study conducted?

724 participants in clinical conferences 2008-2010

375 of the 724 partcipants answered a questionnaire (51.8%)

Factor analysis, comparative analyses

Methods

Analyses

Material

Who participated in the clinical consultations and answered the questionnaire?

Informants VC1 FtF2 Σ

Clients3 27 95 122

Local professionals 79 151 230

Professionals from Frambu 16 7 23

Sum 122 253 375

1VC = Videoconference2FtF = Face-to-face meeting3Clients (N = 122) were mainly parents (72 mothers, 41 fathers, 2 clients, 7 other relatives).

Questionnaire

• Two versions: clients and professionals

– Clients: on paper distributed by mail– Professionals: electronic questionnaire

• 35 items totally

• 12 items on user satisfaction and user activity

• 5 point Likert scale

12 items on user satisfaction and user activity

1. The atmosphere at the conference was relaxed2. Frambu’s professional contribution did not live up to my expectations

(Reversed) 3. More professionals from Frambu should have participated (Reversed)4. Frambu’s professionals contributed to solving the tasks we wanted5. The role of Frambu at the conference was unclear to me (Reversed) 6. I made comments and asked questions7. I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to8. The service providers from the Municipality and from Frambu

cooperated well at the conference9. We had a good dialogue at the meeting10. I felt uncomfortable (Reversed) 11. The break(s) contributed to valuable talks12. I am satisfied with the benefit of the conference

• The atmosphere at the conference was relaxed

• Frambu’s professional contribution did not live up to my expectations (Reversed)

• More professionals from Frambu should have participated (Reversed)

• Frambu’s professionals contributed to solving the tasks we wanted

• The role of Frambu at the conference was unclear to me (Reversed)

• I made comments and asked questions

• I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to

• The service providers from the Municipality and from Frambu cooperated well at the conference

• We had a good dialogue at the meeting

• I felt uncomfortable (Reversed)

• The break(s) contributed to valuable talks

• I am satisfied with the benefit of the conference

Factor analysis

User satisfaction

User activity

• I made comments and asked questions

• I got questions and/or direct requests that I replayed to

Main results:

Same degree of satisfaction in VC and FtF

User satisfaction

VC FtF

Number of participants (N)

94

224

Mean score 4.4 4.3#

SD 0.5 0.6

# No significant difference between videoconference and face to face conference

User activity

VC FtF

Number of participants (N)

103

249

Mean score 3.7 4.2***

SD 1.3 1.0

Main result:Significant higher degree of user activity in FtF than VC

*** p< 0.001compared to the VC

Discussion

• User satisfaction was independent of modality and role

– The hypothesis is supported

• User activity was influenced by modality

Discussion

• Other factors probably explaining the lower activity on VC

– Unfamiliar situation– Meeting structure & turn-taking– Training

• More professionals from the centre present in VC than FtF

Conclusion:VC and FtF as equal modalities

• Participants in VC are satisfied

– Actively involve local professionals

• Support & training

– Technical support– Communication skills– Educational program

kari.hagen@frambu.no