Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Development and validity of the expectations of physiotherapists questionnaire on practice management software

Background

Despite the growing trend in the use of digital technologies in physiotherapy, the overall adoption of both, practice management software (PMS) and electronic health records in physiotherapy clinics has been low and slow over time. In order to learn what factors determine the adoption of these technologies by physiotherapists, there is a need to examine the expectations of physiotherapists (EPs) on specific software attributes. The main aims of this study were to develop a questionnaire to measure and describe the EPs towards PMS. The knowledge of these EPs will be useful to guide PMS design in order to improve physiotherapists' satisfaction.

Methods

Instrument development study with validity and reliability testing. The development of this questionnaire was conducted in three phases: identification of attributes to be explored, development of the items, pilot study, and psychometric testing. The questionnaire was distributed to chartered physiotherapists. A total of 272 participants completed the questionnaire.

Results

A series of analysis were conducted to assess item reduction, factor structure of the questionnaire and metric properties of multi-item scales. From the initial 43 attributes, the final version of the questionnaire consisted of 26 items on EPs, grouped in nine scales and two areas (clinical care and administrative activities). As a result, all scores had strong item-scale correlations, excellent item scaling success, and good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficients of >.7). Our study also showed that current EPs were high towards most of the items, only two scales concentrated most of the attributes with the least expectations (monitoring quality of care and digital health interventions). Our study included physiotherapists with and without experience with PMS, and it showed that both groups had a similar pattern of expectations. Our study provides a valuable questionnaire of EP on PMS attributes for clinical care and administrative activities and shows a detailed development process.

Mobile health to promote physical activity in people post stroke or transient ischemic attack - study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Physical activity is essential to improve health and reduce the risk of recurrence of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Still, people post stroke or TIA are often physically inactive and the availability of physical activity promotion services are often limited. This study builds on an existing Australian telehealth-delivered programme (i-REBOUND- Let's get moving) which provides support for home-based physical activity for people post stroke or TIA. The aim of this study is to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of a mobile Health (mHealth) version of the i-REBOUND programme for the promotion of physical activity in people post stroke or TIA living in Sweden.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty participants with stroke or TIA will be recruited via advertisement. A parallel-group feasibility randomised controlled trial design with a 1:1 allocation ratio to 1) i-REBOUND programme receiving physical exercise and support for sustained engagement in physical activity through behavioural change techniques, or 2) behavioural change techniques for physical activity. Both interventions will proceed for six months and be delivered digitally through a mobile app. The feasibility outcomes (i.e., reach, adherence, safety and fidelity) will be monitored throughout the study. Acceptability will be assessed using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and further explored through qualitative interviews with a subset of both study participants and the physiotherapists delivering the intervention. Clinical outcomes on preliminary effects of the intervention will include blood pressure, engagement in physical activity, self-perceived exercise self-efficacy, fatigue, depression, anxiety, stress and health-related quality of life and will be measured at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after the baseline assessments.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesise that the mHealth delivery of the i-REBOUND programme will be feasible and acceptable in people post stroke/TIA living in rural and urban regions of Sweden. The results of this feasibility trial will inform the development of full-scale and appropriately powered trial to test the effects and costs of mHealth delivered physical activity for people after stroke or TIA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05111951. Registered November 8, 2021.

Telemedicine for neurological diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim was to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of telemedicine combined with usual care (in-person visits) compared to usual care for the therapeutic management and follow-up assessment of neurological diseases.

METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (June 2021). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on patients of any age with neurological diseases were considered. Two reviewers screened and abstracted data in duplicate and independently and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). When possible, pooled effect estimates were calculated.

RESULTS

Of a total of 3018 records initially retrieved, 25 RCTs (n = 2335) were included: 11 (n = 804) on stroke, four (n = 520) on Parkinson's disease, three (n = 110) on multiple sclerosis, two (n = 320) on epilepsy, one (n = 63) on dementia, one (n = 23) on spina bifida, one (n = 40) on migraine, one (n = 22) on cerebral palsy and one (n = 433) on brain damage. Types of telemedicine assessed were online visits (11 studies), tele-rehabilitation (seven studies), telephone calls (three), smartphone apps (two) and online computer software (two). The evidence was quite limited except for stroke. Compared to usual care alone, telemedicine plus usual care was found to improve depressive symptoms, functional status, motor function, executive function, generic quality of life, healthcare utilization and healthy lifestyle in patients in post-stroke follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed and executed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings on stroke and to have more scientific evidence available for the other neurological diseases.

Telerehabilitation services for stroke

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation offers an alternate way of delivering rehabilitation services. Information and communication technologies are used to facilitate communication between the healthcare professional and the patient in a remote location. The use of telerehabilitation is becoming more viable as the speed and sophistication of communication technologies improve. However, it is currently unclear how effective this model of delivery is relative to rehabilitation delivered face-to-face or when added to usual care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of telerehabilitation leads to improved ability to perform activities of daily living amongst stroke survivors when compared with (1) in-person rehabilitation (when the clinician and the patient are at the same physical location and rehabilitation is provided face-to-face); or (2) no rehabilitation or usual care. Secondary objectives were to determine whether use of telerehabilitation leads to greater independence in self-care and domestic life and improved mobility, balance, health-related quality of life, depression, upper limb function, cognitive function or functional communication when compared with in-person rehabilitation and no rehabilitation. Additionally, we aimed to report on the presence of adverse events, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and levels of user satisfaction associated with telerehabilitation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2019), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June 2019), Embase (1974 to June 2019), and eight additional databases. We searched trial registries and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of telerehabilitation in stroke. We included studies that compared telerehabilitation with in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. In addition, we synthesised and described the results of RCTs that compared two different methods of delivering telerehabilitation services without an alternative group. We included rehabilitation programmes that used a combination of telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation provided that the greater proportion of intervention was provided via telerehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials on the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated any disagreements. The review authors contacted investigators to ask for missing information. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and interpret findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials in the review involving a total of 1937 participants. The studies ranged in size from the inclusion of 10 participants to 536 participants, and reporting quality was often inadequate, particularly in relation to random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data were apparent in several studies. Study interventions and comparisons varied, meaning that, in many cases, it was inappropriate to pool studies. Intervention approaches included post-hospital discharge support programs, upper limb training, lower limb and mobility retraining and communication therapy for people with post-stroke language disorders. Studies were either conducted upon discharge from hospital or with people in the subacute or chronic phases following stroke.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

we found moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference in activities of daily living between people who received a post-hospital discharge telerehabilitation intervention and those who received usual care (based on 2 studies with 661 participants (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to 0.15)). We found low-quality evidence of no difference in effects on activities of daily living between telerehabilitation and in-person physical therapy programmes (based on 2 studies with 75 participants: SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.48).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

we found a low quality of evidence that there was no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation for balance outcomes (based on 3 studies with 106 participants: SMD 0.08, 95%CI -0.30 to 0.46). Pooling of three studies with 569 participants showed moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference between those who received post-discharge support interventions and those who received usual care on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.20). Similarly, pooling of six studies (with 1145 participants) found moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference in depressive symptoms when comparing post-discharge tele-support programs with usual care (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.11). We found no difference between groups for upper limb function (based on 3 studies with 170 participants: mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI -2.17 to 4.64, low-quality evidence) when a computer program was used to remotely retrain upper limb function in comparison to in-person therapy. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the effects of telerehabilitation on mobility or participant satisfaction with the intervention. No studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation; however, five of the studies reported health service utilisation outcomes or costs of the interventions provided within the study. Two studies reported on adverse events, although no serious trial-related adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While there is now an increasing number of RCTs testing the efficacy of telerehabilitation, it is hard to draw conclusions about the effects as interventions and comparators varied greatly across studies. In addition, there were few adequately powered studies and several studies included in this review were at risk of bias. At this point, there is only low or moderate-level evidence testing whether telerehabilitation is a more effective or similarly effective way to provide rehabilitation. Short-term post-hospital discharge telerehabilitation programmes have not been shown to reduce depressive symptoms, improve quality of life, or improve independence in activities of daily living when compared with usual care. Studies comparing telerehabilitation and in-person therapy have also not found significantly different outcomes between groups, suggesting that telerehabilitation is not inferior. Some studies reported that telerehabilitation was less expensive to provide but information was lacking about cost-effectiveness. Only two trials reported on whether or not any adverse events had occurred; these trials found no serious adverse events were related to telerehabilitation. The field is still emerging and more studies are needed to draw more definitive conclusions. In addition, while this review examined the efficacy of telerehabilitation when tested in randomised trials, studies that use mixed methods to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth interventions are incredibly valuable in measuring outcomes.