JCPSLP Vol 16 no 3 2014_FINAL_WEB

Table 1: Demographic Data Name* Age range

Years in profession

State

Geographic location

Clinical context

Caseload

Sarah

26–35 36–45 36–45 26–35 36–45 26–35 26–35 36–45 36–45 26–35 36–45 46–55 26–35 26–35 36–45 36–45 Over 55 36–45

5–10 > 15 > 15

SA SA SA SA VIC VIC VIC SA SA SA SA VIC VIC SA SA VIC

RR RR RR RR

Acute Hosp/CH

Mixed Mixed Mixed Adult Mixed Adult Adult Adult

Sandra Alison

CH CH

Taylor

< 5

Rehab

Melody

> 15 5–10

Outer metro Inner metro Inner metro

Disability

Kerry Trudy

Acute Hosp. Acute Hosp. Acute/Rehab

11–15

Rhonda

> 15 > 15

RR

Rosa

Outer metro

CH PP CH

Paediatric Paediatric

Jacinta Hayley Yvonne Leila Lucy Fiona Susan Maria

11–15

QLD

RR RR

> 15 > 15 5–10 5–10 > 15 > 15 > 15 > 15

Mixed

Outer metro Outer metro Inner metro Inner metro Inner metro

CH/PP

Paediatric Paediatric

Disability Disability

Adult

CH CH

Paediatric Paediatric

RR

Disability

Adult

Kelly Adult Notes. RR: Rural & remote; CH: Community health; PP: Private practice; NSW: New South Wales; SA: South Australia; QLD: Queensland; VIC: Victoria; Inner metro: within 20km of a CBD; Outer metro: 21–50km of CBD; Rural & remote (RR): more than 50km from CBD. * The names of the SLPs are pseudonyms. NSW Inner metro Private rehab

nationally via the SPA national e-newsletter (June and July 2013) where an information statement and an invitation to contact the primary researcher were provided. The chief allied health advisor from a state government health service facilitated an invitation to SLP heads of department and clinical lead SLPs to convene focus groups with the primary researcher at their locations. The combined use of individual interviews and focus groups ensured adequate participant numbers. Previous studies involving SLPs as participants have reported difficulty with participant recruitment (Dunkley et al., 2010; Hill & Miller, 2012). Participants could attend either a focus group or an interview depending on their availability and location. Twelve SLPs participated in individual interviews (two face to face [FTF] and 10 via telephone) and six participated in one of two focus groups (one with four participants and one with two participants). Focus groups were conducted via teleconference as participants were more than 100 kilometres from the researcher. Data collection Interviews and focus groups used semi-structured open-ended questions in order to elicit in-depth understandings and beliefs about telehealth (Liamputtong, 2010). A topic guide, based on Hill and Miller’s (2012) questionnaire, was used to explore participant perceptions of telehealth use in SLP (Table 2). Interviews (average length, 29 minutes) and focus groups (average length, 47 minutes) occurred over a period of three months. All interviews and focus groups were recorded with a digital audio-recording device and telephone microphone and the researcher kept written notes. Data were fully transcribed verbatim by the first author. Data analysis Thematic analysis using a grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data (Table 3). Transcription occurred immediately after each interview and focus group. Transcribed data informed questions presented in subsequent interviews and focus groups. All data were fully

Table 2. Topic guide The areas included in the topic guide were:

1. Introduction

transcribed and coded using the following steps (as per Liamputtong, 2010): Step 1: Open coding: initial sorting of keywords and phrases from each transcription into as many codes as possible, identifying key points relevant to the research questions. Step 2: Focused coding: sorting codes into subthemes searching for similarities and differences and making sense of patterns within the subthemes. Step 3: Axial coding: Reviewing subthemes and comparing back to original transcripts for accuracy. Codes and subthemes were re-worked for consistency and accuracy. Step 4: Selective coding: Final refining of themes and subthemes and applying definitions and labels to overarching core themes. Credibility Transcripts were analysed by both researchers independently to increase the validity of the emerging Why don’t you use it? Any further barriers? 3. Potential facilitators to using telehealth. What would need to be different for you to use telehealth? What do you believe would support uptake of telehealth in speech pathology? Participant demographics What do you think of when you hear the term telehealth? What do think about telehealth in speech pathology for clinical service provision? 2. Exploring the barriers to using telehealth?

148

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 3 2014

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology