Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapy: A Rapid Overview.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy.

Methods

We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations, and contexts-where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy-were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence, and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively in the tables and figures.

Results

Fifty-three systematic reviews were included, of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions, and 13 on neurorehabilitation. The other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results.

Conclusions

Despite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable with in-person rehabilitation or better than no rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low-back pain, hip and knee replacement, and multiple sclerosis and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Impact

Providing the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore yield better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.

SUBMITTER: Seron P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7928601 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Bilinguals with post-stroke aphasia (BWA) require treatment options that are sensitive to their particular bilingual background and deficits across languages. However, they may experience limited access to bilingual clinical resources due to reduced availability of bilingual practitioners, geographical constraints, and other difficulties. Telerehabilitation can improve access to bilingual clinical services for BWA and facilitate the delivery of specific language treatments at distance, but more evidence on its effectiveness and reliability is needed. This study aimed to determine the equivalence of effectiveness and reliability of a semantic treatment for word retrieval deficits in BWA delivered via telerehabilitation relative to in-person therapy. Methods: We examined the retrospective data of 16 BWA who received 20 sessions of therapy based on semantic feature analysis for word retrieval deficits in person (n = 8) or via telerehabilitation (n = 8). The two groups were comparable on age, years of education, time of post-stroke onset, aphasia severity, and naming ability in both languages. Treatment effectiveness (i.e., effect sizes in the treated and the untreated language, and change on secondary outcome measures) and reliability (i.e., clinician adherence to treatment protocol) were computed for each delivery modality and compared across groups. Results: Significant improvements were observed in most patients, with no significant differences in treatment effect sizes or secondary outcomes in the treated and the untreated language between the teletherapy group and the in-person therapy group. Also, the average percentage of correctly delivered treatment steps by clinicians was high for both therapy delivery methods with no significant differences between the telerehabilitation vs. the in-person modality. Discussion: This study provides evidence of the equivalence of treatment gains between teletherapy and in-person therapy in BWA and the high reliability with which treatment for word retrieval deficits can be delivered via telerehabilitation, suggesting that the essential treatment components of the intervention can be conducted in a comparable manner in both delivery modalities. We further discuss the benefits and potential challenges of the implementation of telerehabilitation for BWA. In the future, telerehabilitation may increase access to therapy for BWA with varying linguistic and cultural backgrounds, thus, offering a more inclusive treatment approach to this population.

Project description:BackgroundPatellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a common musculoskeletal condition in young and active adults. Exercise therapy is an essential part of rehabilitation in people with PFPS (PwPFPS). Telerehabilitation is an innovative treatment approach that has been used in several musculoskeletal conditions. This study aims to investigate the non-inferiority of telerehabilitation through a smartphone application, the Vito App, compared to face-to-face physical therapy on reducing pain and improving physical function, quality of life, and psychological factors.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial will include 60 PwPFPS. to a control group (face-to-face physical therapy) or an experimental group (telerehabilitation). The intervention for both groups consists of stretching, strengthening, balance, and functional exercises for 6 weeks and three sessions per week. The primary outcomes are pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS), physical function by the Kujala questionnaire and functional tests including the bilateral squat, anteromedial lunge, and step down, and quality of life by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire quality of life subscale. Secondary outcomes are psychological factors such as anxiety and depression assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire, kinesiophobia assessed with the Tampa scale, and pain catastrophizing assessed with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Assessments will be held in 3 phases: pre-test (before the intervention), post-test (after the 6 weeks of intervention), and follow-up (1 month after the end of the intervention).DiscussionWe expect that both the control group and experimental group will show similar improvements in clinical and psychological outcome measures. If our hypothesis becomes true, PwPFPS can use telerehabilitation as a practical treatment approach. Telerehabilitation can also enhance accessibility to rehabilitation services for active adults and for people living in remote and rural areas.Trial registrationIranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) IRCT20201112049361N1. Registered on 29 October 2022.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy.MethodsAn electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.ResultsOf the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies).ConclusionThis study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

Project description:BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity and access to timely rehabilitation can reduce morbidity and help patients to return to normal life. Telerehabilitation can deliver rehabilitation services with the use of technology to increase patient options, deliver services more efficiently and overcome geographical barriers to healthcare access. Despite its popularity, there is conflicting evidence for its effectiveness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for stroke.MethodsA systematic search of databases (Medline Ovid; Embase; Emcare; Scopus; The Cochrane Library; PEDro; OTSeeker) was conducted in April 2018 (updated in October 2018). This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and methodology registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090445). A modified McMaster critical appraisal tool for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis was conducted.ResultsOut of 1868 studies, 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of interventions were delivered through a variety of telerehabilitation systems and the effectiveness measured through a myriad of outcome measures. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicate that telerehabilitation may have a positive impact on a range of primary and secondary outcomes. However, despite these positive findings, the current evidence lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of intervention parameters and measurement of outcomes, which limits broader application of these results.DiscussionTelerehabilitation, as an alternate form of rehabilitation for people with stroke, shows potential. However, due to methodological and practical concerns, an unequivocal recommendation cannot be made. Findings from this review may inform future policies and practices regarding the use of telerehabilitation for stroke patients.