Table 3 Assessment of feasibility of rehabilitation services (Dichotomized)

Rehabilitation Services

Total N (%) = 176 (100 %)

The use of questionnaire for identifying rehabilitation needs (relative to no such use)

85 (48.57 %)

90 (51.43 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Integrated and decentralized rehabilitation services (relative to centralized rehabilitation services)

69 (39.43 %)

106 (60.57 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Rehabilitation services funded by both public and private sector (relative to those only publicly funded or only privately funded)

82 (46.86 %)

93 (53.14 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Rehabilitation services that provide free care or subsidized care for the poor (relative to no such care)

52 (29.71 %)

123 (70.29 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Health insurance coverage for rehabilitation services (relative to no health insurance coverage)

80 (45.71 %)

95 (54.29 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Providing rehabilitation services within specialized hospitals and units (relative to general hospitals or non specialized units)

58 (33.14 %)

117 (66.86 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Having rehabilitation delivered through your health provider (relative to having rehabilitation delivered through other providers /services like social welfare.

67 (38.51 %)

107 (61.49 %)

174 (98.86 %)

2 (1.14 %)

Community based rehabilitation (relative to hospital or clinic based rehabilitation)

44 (25.14 %)

131 (74.86 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation integrated within trauma care (relative to trauma care without rehabilitation services)

47 (26.86 %)

128 (73.14 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

The use of data collection / management and dissemination systems (relative to no such use)

64 (36.57 %)

111 (63.43 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Increasing the culture of data collection and use as well as acceptability and reliability of data (relatively to not increasing such a culture)

59 (33.71 %)

116 (66.29 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Provision of assistive technology free of charge (relative to prescription only)

52 (29.89 %)

122 (70.11 %)

174 (98.86 %)

2 (1.14 %)

Educational intervention promoting the use of assistive technology (relative to no such intervention)

35 (20.11 %)

139 (79.89 %)

174 (98.86 %)

2 (1.14 %)

Tele audiology in comparison (relative to standard face-to-face audiology)

104 (59.77 %)

70 (40.23 %)

174 (98.86 %)

2 (1.14 %)

Engaging clinicians / managers to collect and use data (relative to no such engagement)

69 (39.43 %)

106 (60.57 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Home-based rehabilitation programs (relative to usual care)

46 (26.29 %)

129 (73.71 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Tele rehabilitation strategies (relative to usual care)

86 (49.14 %)

89 (50.86 %)

175 (99.43 %)

1 (0.57 %)

Task-shifting (relative to usual care)

109 (62.64 %)

65 (37.36 %)

174 (98.86 %)

2 (1.14 %)