Digital Apps to Improve Mobility in Adults with Neurological Conditions: A Health App-Focused Systematic Review

The provision of mobility exercises through a smartphone application (app) for people undertaking neurological rehabilitation may improve mobility outcomes. However, it is difficult for clinicians and consumers to select high-quality, appropriate apps. This review aimed to identify (1) which mobile health (mHealth) apps are suitable for prescribing mobility exercises for adults with neurological health conditions, (2) how well these apps incorporate telehealth strategies, and (3) how well these apps rate in terms of quality and capacity for behaviour change. The Australian Apple iTunes Store was systematically searched, by using a search code and manually, for apps suitable for training mobility in neurological rehabilitation. Additional searches were conducted in known app repositories and for web-based apps. Trained reviewers extracted data from the included apps, including population-specific characteristics; quality, by using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS); and behaviour change potential, by using the App Behaviour Change Scale (ABACUS). The included apps (n = 18) provided <50 to >10,000 exercises, many incurred a subscription fee (n = 13), and half included telehealth features. App quality was moderate (mean MARS score of 3.2/5 and SD of 0.5), and potential for behaviour change was poor (mean ABACUS score of 5.7/21 and SD of 2.1). A limited number of high-quality apps are available for the prescription of mobility exercises in people with neurological conditions.

Exercise Interventions Delivered Through Telehealth to Improve Physical Functioning for Older Adults with Frailty, Cognitive, or Mobility Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introductions: This study assessed the effects of telehealth-delivered exercise interventions on physical functioning for older adults and explored implementation measures related to program delivery. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating effects of exercise interventions delivered through telehealth in adults 60+ years of age with frailty, mobility, or cognitive disability on mobility, strength, balance, falls, and quality of life (QoL). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTSDiscus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched from inception until May 2022. Evidence certainty was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and meta-analysis summarized study effects. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, 5 randomized controlled trials, 2 pilot studies, and 4 feasibility studies. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as "low" or "very low." Pooled between-group differences were not statistically significant, but effect sizes suggested that telehealth produced a moderate improvement on mobility (n = 5 studies; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.25 to 1.51; p = 0.000, I2 = 86%) and strength (n = 4; SMD = 0.73; 95% CI = -0.10 to 1.56; p = 0.000, I2 = 84%), a small improvement on balance (n = 3; SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = -035 to 1.15; p = 0.012, I2 = 78%), and no effect on QoL. Analysis of implementation measures suggested telehealth to be feasible in this population, given high rates of acceptability and adherence with minimal safety concerns. Discussion: Telehealth may provide small to moderate benefits on a range of physical outcomes and appears to be well received in aged care populations.

Problems and Opportunities of a Smartphone-Based Care Management Platform: Application of the Wald Principles to a Survey-Based Analysis of Patients' Perception in a Pilot Center

(1) Background: Mobile health (mHealth) solutions can become a means of improving functional recovery and reducing the peri-operative burden and costs associated with arthroplasty procedures. The aim of this study is to explore the objectives, functionalities, and outcomes of a platform designed to provide personalized surgical experiences to qualified patients, along with the associated problems and opportunities. (2) Methods: A survey-based analysis was conducted on patients who were prescribed the use of a specific care management platform and underwent primary robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) between January 2021 and February 2023. (3) Results: Patients registered on the platform who have undergone primary robotic TKA (rTKA) were considered. The mean age of registered patients is 68.6 years. The male (M)/female (F) ratio is 45.1%/54.9%. The patients interviewed were at an average distance of 485 days from the intervention, with a standard deviation of 187.5. The survey highlighted appreciation for the app and its features, but also limitations in its use and in its perception by the patients. All these data were evaluated according to the Wald principles and strategies to improve patient recruitment, enhance adherence, and create a comprehensive patient journey for optimized surgical experiences. (4) Conclusions: This patient care platform may have the potential to impact surgical experiences by increasing patient engagement, facilitating remote monitoring, and providing personalized care. There is a need to emphasize the importance of integrating the recruiting process, improving adherence strategies, and creating a comprehensive patient journey within the platform.

Implementing digital devices to increase mobility training for people receiving inpatient rehabilitation: protocol for a feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programs incorporating intensive, repetitive, and task-specific exercises using digital devices such as virtual reality gaming systems, tablet and smartphone applications, and wearable devices. The Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial (n = 300) showed improvements in mobility in people using these types of digital devices in addition to their usual rehabilitation care when the intervention was provided by an additional study-funded physiotherapist. However, it is not clear if this intervention can be implemented by hospital physiotherapists with a usual clinical load. The AMOUNT Implementation trial aims to explore the feasibility of conducting a large-scale implementation trial.

METHODS

A pragmatic, assessor blinded, feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial will be undertaken at a public hospital in Australia. There will be two phases. Phase I (Implementation phase) will involve implementing the digital devices into physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapists from the rehabilitation ward will receive a multifaceted implementation strategy guided by the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) theoretical model. The implementation strategy includes identifying and training a clinical champion; providing digital devices and education and training; facilitating use of the devices through clinical reasoning sessions and journal clubs; and audit and feedback of exercise dosage documentation. Phase II (Trial phase) will involve randomising 30 eligible inpatients from the same ward into either usual care or usual care plus an additional 30 min or more of exercises using digital devices. This intervention will be provided by the physiotherapists who took part in the implementation phase. We will collect data on feasibility, implementation, and patient-level clinical outcomes. The three primary outcome measures are the extent to which physiotherapists document the dosage of exercises provided to participants (feasibility criteria: exercise practice sheets complete for ≥85% of all participants); ability to recruit participants; and fidelity to the protocol of using digital devices to prescribe exercises (feasibility criteria: average of ≥ 30mins per day for > 50% intervention participants).

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study will provide important information to guide the planning and conduct of a future large-scale implementation trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; ACTRN12621000938808; registered 19/07/2021. Trial sponsor: Prince of Wales Hospital. 320-346 Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.

PROTOCOL VERSION

6.2 7th April 2021.

Planning implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions for people with walking difficulties: study protocol for the process evaluation of the ComeBACK trial

Background

There is currently little evidence of planning for real-world implementation of physical activity interventions. We are undertaking the ComeBACK (Coaching and Exercise for Better Walking) study, a 3-arm hybrid Type 1 randomised controlled trial evaluating a health coaching intervention and a text messaging intervention. We used an implementation planning framework, the PRACTical planning for Implementation and Scale-up (PRACTIS), to guide the process evaluation for the trial. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for the process evaluation of the ComeBACK trial using the framework of the PRACTIS guide.

Methods

A mixed methods process evaluation protocol was developed informed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations for complex interventions and the PRACTIS guide. Quantitative data, including participant questionnaires, health coach and administrative logbooks, and website and text message usage data, is being collected over the trial period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with trial participants, health coaches and health service stakeholders will explore expectations, factors influencing the delivery of the ComeBACK interventions and potential scalability within existing health services. These data will be mapped against the steps of the PRACTIS guide, with reporting at the level of the individual, provider, organisational and community/systems. Quantitative and qualitative data will elicit potential contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation and scale-up. Quantitative data will be reported descriptively, and qualitative data analysed thematically.

Discussion

This process evaluation integrates an evaluation of prospective implementation and scale-up. It is envisaged this will inform barriers and enablers to future delivery, implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to describe the application of PRACTIS to guide the process evaluation of physical activity interventions.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Registration date: 10/12/2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05990-3.

Telerehabilitation in Italy During the COVID-19 Lockdown: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study

This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a telerehabilitation program during the COVID-19 pandemic in a sample of adult patients with physical disabilities. Of the twenty-three patients enrolled, 11 agreed to participate in a video-based telerehabilitation program. Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telerehabilitation were identified and clinical, demographic, and psychological variables were analysed as predictors of success. Age, cognitive reserve, and resilience were significant predictors of satisfaction with telerehabilitation (p<0.05). The telerehabilitation program was perceived as feasible and was well accepted by patients, despite some technology challenges. However, patients who took advantage of telerehabilitation perceived differences in the quality of service and preferred traditional in-person treatment to service delivery via telerehabilitation.

The perspectives of stroke survivors and health professionals on the use of augmented reality for inpatient stroke rehabilitation: an anticipatory exploration

Background:

Augmented reality is a novel technology with potential to overlay aspects or objects from the home environment into hospital-based training, which may increase relevance and motivation for hospital-based rehabilitation. Consultation with people with lived experience and clinician stakeholders is an important step when exploring possibilities for use of new technology in the hospital environment.

Aims:

This study sought to understand the need and acceptability of augmented reality from the perspectives of health professionals and stroke survivors during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

Methods:

This qualitative descriptive study included stroke survivors (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 10) from a large metropolitan hospital. Data collection was undertaken via focus groups which were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results:

Inductive content analysis revealed three themes: everything is computerised these days; the possibilities are endless…but what about?; and bringing the outside into the hospital. Participants were open to the use of augmented reality for stroke rehabilitation; however there was uncertainty with pragmatic concerns and stroke survivors describing possible applications in building confidence and self-efficacy, and sharing experiences to enhance caregivers understanding.

Conclusion:

This research identified that there is potential acceptability for augmented reality in stroke rehabilitation. The needs identified by the participants may inform development of current and future technology.

Wearable Activity Monitoring in Day-to-Day Stroke Care: A Promising Tool but Not Widely Used

Physical activity monitoring with wearable technology has the potential to support stroke rehabilitation. Little is known about how physical therapists use and value the use of wearable activity monitors. This cross-sectional study explores the use, perspectives, and barriers to wearable activity monitoring in day-to-day stroke care routines amongst physical therapists. Over 300 physical therapists in primary and geriatric care and rehabilitation centers in the Netherlands were invited to fill in an online survey that was developed based on previous studies and interviews with experts. In total, 103 complete surveys were analyzed. Out of the 103 surveys, 27% of the respondents were already using activity monitoring. Of the suggested treatment purposes of activity monitoring, 86% were perceived as useful by more than 55% of the therapists. The most recognized barriers to clinical implementation were lack of skills and knowledge of patients (65%) and not knowing what brand and type of monitor to choose (54%). Of the non-users, 79% were willing to use it in the future. In conclusion, although the concept of remote activity monitoring was perceived as useful, it was not widely adopted by physical therapists involved in stroke care. To date, skills, beliefs, and attitudes of individual therapists determine the current use of wearable technology.

What Factors Influence Clinicians' Use of Technology in Neurorehabilitation? A Multisite Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Technology is being increasingly used for physical assessment and interventions in health care settings. However, clinical adoption is relatively slow, and the factors affecting use remain underexplored. This study aimed to investigate factors influencing technology use by clinicians working in neurorehabilitation.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, 9 physical therapists and 9 occupational therapists (N = 18) were recruited from urban and regional locations in Australia and in Singapore. Three 60-minute focus groups were conducted via video conferencing. Each group comprised 3 physical therapists and 3 occupational therapists working across different neurorehabilitation settings. Participants were asked to discuss which technologies they used in their workplace for physical assessment and treatment and barriers, motivators, and future desires for technology use. Transcripts were analyzed independently using an inductive approach to generate codes and themes.

RESULTS

Our results comprised 3 themes and 7 categories. These were encompassed by a single overarching theme, namely "Technology use is influenced by the benefits and challenges of the technology itself, users, and organizational context." Themes showed that technology should promote effective interventions, is preferred if easy to use, and should be dependable. Furthermore, clinical reasoning is important, and users have varying levels of receptivity and confidence in technology use. Also, organizational resources are required, along with supportive cultures and processes, to facilitate technology use.

CONCLUSIONS

The themes identified multiple and interlinking factors influencing clinicians' use of technology in neurorehabilitation settings. Clinicians often consider context-specific benefits and challenges when deciding whether to use technology. Although our study found that clinicians generally perceived technology as having a beneficial role in improving health outcomes, there were several challenges raised. Therefore, the characteristics of the technology itself, individual users, and organizational context should be considered.

IMPACT

These findings will guide successful technology implementation and future developments.

Feasibility of a Self-Managed, Video-Guided Exercise Program for Community-Dwelling People with Stroke

Background

Ongoing rehabilitation after stroke is limited. Using video-guided exercises, which are implemented with a self-management approach, may be a way to facilitate ongoing exercise in the home environment.

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of a video-guided exercise program, implemented with a self-management approach for people with stroke.

Methods

A phase I, single-group, clinical trial. The study comprised two phases: in phase one, four weeks of the program was supported by weekly supervised sessions and in phase two, four weeks of the program was completed without direct supervision. Demographic information was recorded at baseline. Adherence and adverse events were self-reported via a logbook. Acceptability was measured through a purpose-built scale. Physical performance, physical activity, and exercise self-efficacy were measured at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks.

Results

Sixteen people with stroke were recruited; however, 14 commenced and completed the study. Adherence during the supervised phase was 3.3 hours per week and 2.3 hours per week during the self-directed phase. There were no adverse events. Most participants indicated that the program was easy to use (92%) and would recommend the program to others (86%). Walking speed improved over the duration of the program (mean difference -0.12 m/s, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.02, p = 0.02). Self-efficacy and physical activity did not change over the duration of the program.

Conclusion

The findings support the feasibility of a video-guided exercise program for people with stroke. Further research to confirm the effectiveness of this intervention to improve physical function is warranted.

Physical activity coaching for adults with mobility limitations: protocol for the ComeBACK pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mobility limitation is common and often results from neurological and musculoskeletal health conditions, ageing and/or physical inactivity. In consultation with consumers, clinicians and policymakers, we have developed two affordable and scalable intervention packages designed to enhance physical activity for adults with self-reported mobility limitations. Both are based on behaviour change theories and involve tailored advice from physiotherapists.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 randomised control trial (n=600) will be undertaken among adults with self-reported mobility limitations. It aims to estimate the effects on physical activity of: (1) an enhanced 6-month intervention package (one face-to-face physiotherapy assessment, tailored physical activity plan, physical activity phone coaching from a physiotherapist, informational/motivational resources and activity monitors) compared with a less intensive 6-month intervention package (single session of tailored phone advice from a physiotherapist, tailored physical activity plan, unidirectional text messages, informational/motivational resources); (2) the enhanced intervention package compared with no intervention (6-month waiting list control group); and (3) the less intensive intervention package compared with no intervention (waiting list control group). The primary outcome will be average steps per day, measured with the StepWatch Activity Monitor over a 1-week period, 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other physical activity measures, measures of health and functioning, individualised mobility goal attainment, mental well-being, quality of life, rate of falls, health utilisation and intervention evaluation. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design (type 1) will be used to enable the collection of secondary implementation outcomes at the same time as the primary effectiveness outcome. An economic analysis will estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the interventions compared with no intervention and to each other.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained by Sydney Local Health District, Royal Prince Alfred Zone. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletters, talks and meetings with health managers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618001983291.

Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial - description of device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase

PURPOSE

To describe device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase of the AMOUNT rehabilitation trial.

METHODS

We performed an evaluation of the support required for device use by participants randomised to the intervention group who received digitally-enabled rehabilitation in the post-hospital phase (n = 144). Intervention, additional to standard rehabilitation, utilised eight digital devices (virtual reality videogames, activity monitors and handheld computer devices) to improve mobility and increase physical activity. Participants were taught to use devices during inpatient rehabilitation and were then discharged home to use the devices for the remainder of the 6-month trial. Physiotherapist-participant contact occurred every 1-2 weeks using a health coaching approach, including technology support when required. Intervention datasheets were audited, and descriptive statistics used to report device use and support required.

RESULTS

Participants (mean (SD) age 70 (18) years; 49% neurological health conditions) used an average of 2 (SD 1) devices (98% used an activity monitor). Eight percent of physiotherapy contact included technology support with 30% provided remotely. Support addressed 845 issues categorised under initial set-up and instruction (27%), education and training (31%), maintenance (23%) and trouble-shooting (19%).

CONCLUSION

Digital devices can be used for home-based rehabilitation, but ongoing technology support is essential. Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000936628IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDigital device use at home to support long-term management of health conditions is likely to become increasingly important as the need for rehabilitation increases and rehabilitation resources become more limited.Technology support for set-up and ongoing device use is a critical enabler of home-based digital interventions.Health professionals delivering home-based digital interventions require sufficient training and equipment and may need to vary the mode (e.g., home visit vs. telephone or video conference) depending on the technology support required.

Evaluation of a staff behaviour change intervention to increase the use of ward-based practice books and active practice during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a phase-1 pre-post observational study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate a staff behaviour change intervention to increase the use of ward-based practice books and active practice by stroke inpatients.

DESIGN

This is a pre-post observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in a inpatient rehabilitation unit in Australia.

SUBJECTS

Stroke inpatients participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

A staff behaviour change intervention was designed to support staff to implement practice books. The intervention included staff training on motivation and coaching, and weekly audit and feedback for six months. The environment was restructured to bring staff together weekly at the bedside to review audit data and share skills.

MAIN MEASURES

Medical record audit and behavioural mapping were used to compare the number of stroke participants with/using a practice book pre- and post-intervention. Pre- and post-intervention, the percentage of observations where a stroke participant was actively practising, repetitions of practice recorded and type of supervision were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 24 participants were observed (n = 12 pre, n = 12 post). Post-intervention, the number of participants with practice books increased from one to six (OR = 11, 95% CI = (0.9, 550.7)), but this change was not statistically significant (P = 0.069). Five participants recorded repetitions in their practice books post-intervention, three were observed using practice books. There was no change in median repetitions recorded (r_pbs = 0.00, 95% CI = (-0.4, 0.4), P = 1.000) or observed active practice (r_pbs = -0.02, 95% CI = (-0.4, 0.4), P = 0.933). Active practice was often fully supervised by a therapist.

CONCLUSION

A staff behaviour change intervention has the potential to increase the number of stroke survivors receiving ward-based practice books but did not increase active practice.

Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

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.

Therapy-based exercise from the perspective of adult patients: a qualitative systematic review conducted using an ethnographic approach

OBJECTIVES

Many patients do not meet recommended levels of therapy-based exercise. This review aims to explore how adult patients view being prescribed therapy-based exercise, the information/education they are given and receive and if/how they independently practise and adhere.

DESIGN

A qualitative systematic review conducted using an ethnographic approach and in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS and EMBASE databases (01 January 2000-31 December 2018).

METHODS

Qualitative studies with a focus on engagement/adherence with therapy-based exercise were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers. Results were discussed and data synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 20,294 titles were screened, with data extracted from 39 full texts and data from 18 papers used to construct three themes. 'The Guidance received' suggests that the type of delivery desired to support and sustain engagement was context-dependent and individually situated. 'The Therapist as teacher' advocates that patients see independent therapy-based exercise as a shared activity and value caring, kind and professional qualities in their therapist. 'The Person as learner' proposes that when having to engage with and practise therapy-based exercise because of ill-health, patients often see themselves as new learners who experience fear and uncertainty about what to do. Patients may have unacknowledged ambivalences about learning that impact on engagement and persistence.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the interaction between therapists and patients appears integral to patients engaging with, and sustaining practice of, rehabilitation programmes. Programmes need to be individualized, and health care professionals need to take patients' previous experiences and ambivalences in motivation and empowerment into account.

Introducing robotic upper limb training into routine clinical practice for stroke survivors: Perceptions of occupational therapists and physiotherapists

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb (RT-UL) is an emerging form of intervention for stroke survivors with upper limb deficits. However, there is limited knowledge regarding therapists' perceptions of RT-UL and the factors influencing the implementation of RT-UL into the clinical setting. This is important when considering that therapists in Australia are primarily responsible for the prescription of RT-UL in daily practice. This study aimed to explore occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' perceptions of RT-UL and the perceived barriers and enablers influencing implementation.

METHODS

Two discipline-specific focus groups were conducted involving occupational therapists (n = 6) and physiotherapists (n = 6). Participants were members of the same multidisciplinary team working in an Australian public health rehabilitation facility where RT-UL (i.e. InMotion2) was being introduced for the first time. Focus groups explored therapist perceptions of the new RT-UL as well as perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Out of the 14 domains of the TDF, 7 were raised by participants during the focus groups: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, optimism, knowledge, skills, social influences, and social and professional role and identity. Therapists' expressed their optimism towards the introduction of RT-UL but believed successful implementation would be primarily dependent on the availability of clinical leadership, training and a suitable client mix.

CONCLUSION

Therapists perceived that RT-UL would provide opportunity for increased upper limb practice particularly for patients with severe upper limb impairment. To facilitate implementation, support of RT-UL should come from both management and clinical leaders and training include RT-UL efficacy, device functionality and patient suitability. The availability of a single RT-UL device in a workplace may create unique interdisciplinary and logistical challenges.