Can telerehabilitation services combined with caregiver-mediated exercises improve early supported discharge services poststroke? A study protocol for a multicentre, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

BACKGROUND

Various approaches to physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility are used after stroke. There is considerable controversy around the relative effectiveness of approaches, and little known about optimal delivery and dose. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use components from several different approaches.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: To determine whether physical rehabilitation is effective for recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that may impact the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation approaches, including time after stroke, geographical location of study, intervention dose/duration, intervention provider, and treatment components. Stakeholder involvement: Key aims were to clarify the focus of the review, inform decisions about subgroup analyses, and co-produce statements relating to key implications.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched November 2022), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2022), Embase (1980 to November 2022), AMED (1985 to November 2022), CINAHL (1982 to November 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to November 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

RCTs of upper limb function or single treatment components.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

measures of independence in activities of daily living (IADL) and motor function.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

balance, gait velocity, and length of stay.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected studies according to pre-defined eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, we included 267 studies (21,838 participants). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with half (133/267) in China. Generally, studies were heterogeneous, and often poorly reported. We judged only 14 studies in meta-analyses as at low risk of bias for all domains and, on average, we considered 33% of studies in analyses of primary outcomes at high risk of bias. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than no (or minimal) physical rehabilitation? Compared to no physical rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.56; 52 studies, 5403 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 50 studies, 5669 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of long-term benefits for these outcomes. Physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 4.54, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.72; 9 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves gait velocity (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42; 18 studies, 1131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but with no evidence of long-term benefits. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than attention control? The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation, as compared to attention control, on IADL (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.75; 2 studies, 106 participants), motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38; 5 studies, 237 participants), and balance (MD 6.61, 95% CI -0.45 to 13.66; 4 studies, 240 participants). Physical rehabilitation likely improves gait speed when compared to attention control (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 7 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Does additional physical rehabilitation improve outcomes? Additional physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.71; 21 studies, 1972 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 22 studies, 1965 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Additional physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 5.74, 95% CI 3.78 to 7.71; 15 studies, 795 participants; low-certainty evidence) and gait velocity (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; 19 studies, 1004 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Is any one approach to physical rehabilitation more effective than any other approach? Compared to other approaches, those that focus on functional task training may improve IADL (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 22 studies, 1535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; 20 studies, 1671 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence in the latter is very uncertain. The benefit was sustained long-term. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of functional task training on balance (MD 2.16, 95% CI -0.24 to 4.55) and gait velocity (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.56). Compared to other approaches, neurophysiological approaches may be less effective than other approaches in improving IADL (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06; 14 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no difference in improving motor function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.12; 13 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence), balance (MD -0.60, 95% CI -5.90 to 6.03; 9 studies, 292 participants; low-certainty evidence), and gait velocity (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.27; 16 studies, 630 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on gait velocity. For all comparisons, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation on adverse events and length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical rehabilitation, using a mix of different treatment components, likely improves recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Additional physical rehabilitation, delivered as an adjunct to 'usual' rehabilitation, may provide added benefits. Physical rehabilitation approaches that focus on functional task training may be useful. Neurophysiological approaches to physical rehabilitation may be no different from, or less effective than, other physical rehabilitation approaches. Certainty in this evidence is limited due to substantial heterogeneity, with mainly small studies and important differences between study populations and interventions. We feel it is unlikely that any studies published since November 2022 would alter our conclusions. Given the size of this review, future updates warrant consensus discussion amongst stakeholders to ensure the most relevant questions are explored for optimal decision-making.

Impact of telehealth on stroke survivor-caregiver dyad in at-home rehabilitation: A systematic review

AIM

To examine studies involving the impact of telerehabilitation (TLR), tele-training and tele-support on the dyad stroke survivor and caregiver in relation to psychological, physical, social and health dimensions.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

The following electronic databases were consulted until September 2023: PsycInfo, CINAHL, Eric, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

It was conducted and reported following the checklists for Reviews of PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Critical evaluation of the quality of the studies included in the review was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 2290 records were identified after removing duplicates, 501 articles were selected by title and abstract and only 21 met the inclusion criteria. It included 4 quasi-experimental studies, 7 RCTs, 1 cohort study and 9 qualitative studies. The total number of participants between caregivers and stroke survivors was 1697, including 858 stroke survivors and 839 caregivers recruited from 2002 to 2022. For a total of 884 participants who carried out TLR activities in the experimental groups,11 impact domains were identified: cognitive/functional, psychological, caregiver burden, social, general health and self-efficacy, family function, quality of life, healthcare utilization, preparedness, quality of care and relationship with technology.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the application of telehealth in the discharge phase of hospitals and rehabilitation centres for stroke survivors and caregivers. TLR could be considered a substitute for traditional rehabilitation only if it is supported by a tele-learning programme for the caregiver and ongoing technical, computer and health support to satisfy the dyad's needs.

IMPACT

Designing a comprehensive telemedicine programme upon the return home of the dyad involved in the stroke improves the quality of life, functional, psychological, social, family status, self-efficacy, use of health systems and the dyad's preparation for managing the stroke.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Allied rehabilitation using caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation for stroke (ARMed4Stroke): A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the added value of caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone on the self-reported mobility outcome after subacute stroke.

DESIGN

Multicentre, observer-blinded, parallel randomised controlled trial. An off-site researcher allocated treatments using minimisation.

SETTING

Four rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-one patient-caregiver dyads within 3 months poststroke.

INTERVENTION

Eight-week blended care program with caregiver-mediated mobility exercises for 2.5 h per week supported by telerehabilitation and four face-to-face sessions in addition to usual care.

MAIN MEASURES

Self-reported mobility domain of the Stroke Impact Scale postintervention. Secondary outcomes were functional outcome, dyads' psychosocial wellbeing, care transition to the community postintervention and after 6 months.

RESULTS

Forty-one dyads (21 intervention, 20 control) were randomised, and 37 (N = 18; N = 19) were analysed following intention-to-treat. The Stroke Impact Scale mobility was not significantly different between groups postintervention (B 0.8, 95% CI -6.8-8.5, p = 0.826). The secondary outcomes, namely, (a) caregivers' quality of life postintervention (p = 0.013), (b) caregivers' symptoms of depression postintervention (p = 0.025), and (c) independence in leisurely activities at 6 months (p = 0.024), showed significant benefits in favour of caregiver-mediated exercises with telerehabilitation. A significant difference favouring controls was found in self-reported muscle strength at 6 months (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation yielded no differential effect on our primary outcome self-reported mobility. Although the trial is underpowered, current findings are in line with previous trials. Future studies should further explore beneficial effects of caregiver involvement in stroke rehabilitation targeting psychosocial wellbeing.

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

Telerehabilitation: Exploring the Untapped Potential

Telerehabilitation is a burgeoning field that holds immense promise in revolutionizing the delivery of rehabilitation services. Defined as a branch of telecommunication utilizing technologies such as the internet, it facilitates remote interaction between healthcare providers and patients, transcending geographical barriers. This method proves invaluable in patient assessment, counseling, and treatment across various medical domains, including physical therapy, speech therapy, psychotherapy, and occupational therapy. Particularly beneficial for individuals with disabilities or those unable to access traditional healthcare facilities, telerehabilitation mitigates the constraints of time and cost associated with travel. This paper explores the evolution, types, uses, and research findings in telerehabilitation, shedding light on its transformative potential in health care.

The Extent of Evidence Supporting the Effectiveness of Extended Reality Telerehabilitation on Different Qualitative and Quantitative Outcomes in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review

Objective: To present the extent of evidence concerning the effectiveness of extended reality telerehabilitation and patients' experiences of using different types of virtual reality exercises at home. Methods: We included studies on virtual reality and augmented reality telerehabilitation published in English. Systematic searches were undertaken in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PEDro, with no date limitations. We included only RCTs and qualitative studies exploring patients' experiences. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for quantitative papers and the CASP scale for qualitative studies. All results are presented narratively. Results: Thirteen studies, nine quantitative and four qualitative, were included, with one qualitative and seven quantitative having a high risk of bias. All studies reported that extended reality-based telerehabilitation may be effective compared to conventional exercises or other extended reality exercises. Seven quantitative studies focused on upper limb function. Qualitative papers suggested that VR exercises were perceived as feasible by patients. Conclusions: The literature suggests VR home exercises are feasible and potentially effective for patients after a stroke in the upper limb. Further high-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of XR exercises early adoption on different qualitative and quantitative outcomes. Registration number: (CRD42022384356).

Research hotspots and trends of the tele-rehabilitation for stroke survivors based on CiteSpace: A review

Our first goal is to understand the research status and popularity of telerehabilitation research for stroke survivors since 2012; the second goal is to analyze the research trends and frontiers in this field, and provide a scientific basis for the future application of telerehabilitation technology in patients with poststroke functional defects. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for literature on telerehabilitation for stroke survivors published from 2012 to 2022. The included articles were visually analyzed using CiteSpace6.1.6R (64-bit). In total, 968 eligible articles were included in this study. In the past 10 years, the number of papers published on telerehabilitation after stroke has been increasing annually, with the largest number of papers published in the United States and Australia, with 101 papers published by Chinese scholars. Some subsets of cooperative networks have been formed among major research institutions and their authors, but the scale remains small, and academic exchanges and cooperation need to be strengthened further. Research on virtual reality (VR) technology and rehabilitation robot technology is popular, and the choice of time and intensity of rehabilitation exercises, patients' participation in rehabilitation exercises, and care are also worth attention. In the last 10 years, research on telerehabilitation technology in the field of rehabilitation for stroke survivors has steadily developed, and is characterized by multidisciplinary joint development. Countries around the world can combine their own characteristics and advantages, strengthen academic exchanges and cooperation with mature research institutions or authors, and explore suitable poststroke remote rehabilitation technologies and service models in different environments.

Face-to-face assessment versus tele-assessment of chronic stroke patients: do the results meet the needs?

Aim: Baseline evaluation of stroke patients is valuable to manage the treatment plan. As in the case of stroke evaluation and rehabilitation, in every aspects of healthcare, tele-medicine is growing gradually. The aim of this descriptive study was to explore whether initial tele-assessment of chronic stroke patients is similar to face-to-face assessment in terms of clinical scales. Material and Method: Thirty-four chronic stroke patients (mean post-stroke duration 21.44±15.47 months; stroke etiology, 58.8% ischemic; hemiplegic side, 52.9% left; mean age 49.24±12.51; 22 males; 12 females) were included in this trial. Firstly, all the patients were evaluated online, and then at the same day they were evaluated face-to-face by the clinical scales including Chair Stand Test, Berg Balance Scale, Stroke specific Quality of Life scale, Motricity Index. Results: The findings of the present study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between tele-assessment and face-to-face assessment for all the scales (p>0.05) except Chair Stand Test (mean time to stand: 9.41 secs vs 8.94 secs in tele-assessment and face-to-face respectively; p

Telerehabilitation in the Transitional Care of Patients with Sequelae Associated with COVID-19: Perception of Portuguese Nurses

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many changes and challenges to health professionals, due to a lack of knowledge when dealing with the disease, fear of contagion, and the sequelae that characterize long COVID. To deal with this situation, respiratory rehabilitation programs are recommended in face-to-face and/or telerehabilitation modalities. (1) Background: This study had as its primary aim identifying the aspects/components to be considered in the planning and implementation of telerehabilitation interventions that guarantee transitional care for people with long COVID-19 after hospitalization and as a secondary aim identifying the positive aspects of telerehabilitation. (2) Methods: The method used to answer the research question was a focus group, carried out online with eight nurses specialized in rehabilitation nursing. The answers to the semi-structured interview were subjected to content analysis, and qualitative data analysis software (WebQDA^®) was used to organize and analyze the findings. (3) Results: Four categories emerged from the content analysis: coordination between care levels; transitional care telerehabilitation intervention; advantages of telerehabilitation; and opportunities. (4) Conclusions: These findings make an important contribution to the reorganization of transitional care, allowing the identification of central aspects to be considered in the planning and implementation of telerehabilitation programs for people with long COVID.