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:Telehealth has helped to increase access to rehabilitative services such as occupational and physical therapy. The early COVID-19 pandemic amplified the need for remote access to care, and the rapid implementation of telehealth systems provided a unique opportunity to learn from clinicians' experiences adopting telehealth for telerehabilitation applications. To understand these experiences, a self-administered online survey was conducted to capture perspectives on ease of telerehabilitation use and adoption from occupational and physical therapists. The survey captured retrospective views on telerehabilitation use pre-pandemic as well as real-time perspectives on telerehabilitation during the early stages of the pandemic (July to August 2020). The survey gathered information on clinician demographics (N = 109), clinicians' experiences with adopting or utilizing telerehabilitation systems, and their perceptions on remotely performing cognitive, emotional, and physical assessments via video-conferencing (a common mode of telehealth). Responses demonstrated a modest increase in telerehabilitation as a care setting (rate increase from 3.4% to 19.3%), and telerehabilitation was more generally tried during the early stages of the pandemic (41 clinicians explicitly reported telerehabilitation use). However, technology access and acceptance remained low, with 38 clinicians (35%) expressing concerns that technology was ineffective or impractical, unavailable, not covered by insurance, or not desired by their patients. Video-conferencing technology was perceived as generally ill-equipped to support clinicians in performing remote assessment tasks. Physical assessment tasks were considered particularly difficult, with 55% of clinicians rating their ability to perform these tasks in the range of moderately difficult to unable to perform. To address these difficulties and better augment clinical care, clinicians require more robust assessment methods that may combine video, mobile, and wearable technologies that would be accessible to a patient at home. When designing future telerehabilitation tools, information captured through these modes must be task-relevant, standardized, and understandable to a remote clinician.

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:IntroductionAlternatives such as remotely delivered therapy in the home environment or telehealth represent an opportunity to increase overall cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization. Implementing alternatives into regular practice is the next step in development; however, the cost aspect is essential for policymakers. Limited economic budgets lead to cost-effectiveness analyses before implementation. They are appropriate in cases where there is evidence that the compared intervention provides a similar health benefit to usual care. This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based telehealth CR interventions compared to standard exercise-based CR.Evidence acquisitionPubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to August 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials assessing patients undergoing telehealth CR. The intervention was compared to standard CR protocols. The primary intent was to identify the cost-effectiveness. Interventions that met the criteria were home-based telehealth CR interventions delivered by information and communications technology (telephone, computer, internet, or videoconferencing) and included the results of an economic evaluation, comparing interventions in terms of cost-effectiveness, utility, costs and benefits, or cost-minimization analysis. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO Registry (CRD42022322531).Evidence synthesisOut of 1525 identified studies, 67 articles were assessed for eligibility, and, at the end of the screening process, 12 studies were included in the present systematic review. Most studies (92%) included in this systematic review found strong evidence that exercise-based telehealth CR is cost-effective. Compared to CBCR, there were no major differences, except for three studies evaluating a significant difference in average cost per patient and intervention costs in favor of telehealth CR.ConclusionsTelehealth CR based on exercise is as cost-effective as CBCR interventions. Funding telehealth CR by third-party payers may promote patient participation to increase overall CR utilization. High-quality research is needed to identify the most cost-effective design.