I Irgens1, T Rekand2,3, M Arora4,5, N Liu6, R Marshall7,8, F Biering-Sørensen9, M Alexander10,11,12. 1. Research Department, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Norway, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 2. Department of Neurology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 3. Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute for Physiology and Neuroscience, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia. 5. Sydney Medical School Northern, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. 6. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 7. South Australian Spinal Cord Injury Service, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, Lightsview, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 8. Discipline of Orthopaedics and Trauma, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 9. Clinic for Spinal Cord Injuries, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 10. Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. spinalcordmd@live.com. 11. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA. spinalcordmd@live.com. 12. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. spinalcordmd@live.com.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: To find and discuss what has been published about the use of telehealth, on people with spinal cord injury (teleSCI). SETTING: International. METHOD: Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL, from 1996 till June 2017 have been searched. Searches in PsycINFO, from 1996 till September 2017, were included afterwards. Extracted data include studies in English language, containing information about spinal cord injury and disorders, and telehealth. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, and studies containing other types of neurological disorders, were excluded. Studies were grouped based on how and to whom telehealth was offered. RESULTS: Twenty nine studies were included in the review. They were categorized according to the way teleSCI was provided, and to what modality was used. Some studies utilized more than one modality. TeleSCI seems to be favorable concerning treatment and follow-up, as well as favorable socioeconomically and environmentally. The studies spanned across several aims and outcomes. There was also heterogeneity in number of participants, the differences in modalities, and in the level of evidence. Thus it was challenging to compare studies and make future recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: TeleSCI can be used for examination and guiding purposes. Further research is warranted to evaluate optimal utilization, methodology and efficacy. SPONSORSHIP: The first author has received funding from the Norwegian Extra Foundation.
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: To find and discuss what has been published about the use of telehealth, on people with spinal cord injury (teleSCI). SETTING: International. METHOD: Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL, from 1996 till June 2017 have been searched. Searches in PsycINFO, from 1996 till September 2017, were included afterwards. Extracted data include studies in English language, containing information about spinal cord injury and disorders, and telehealth. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, and studies containing other types of neurological disorders, were excluded. Studies were grouped based on how and to whom telehealth was offered. RESULTS: Twenty nine studies were included in the review. They were categorized according to the way teleSCI was provided, and to what modality was used. Some studies utilized more than one modality. TeleSCI seems to be favorable concerning treatment and follow-up, as well as favorable socioeconomically and environmentally. The studies spanned across several aims and outcomes. There was also heterogeneity in number of participants, the differences in modalities, and in the level of evidence. Thus it was challenging to compare studies and make future recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: TeleSCI can be used for examination and guiding purposes. Further research is warranted to evaluate optimal utilization, methodology and efficacy. SPONSORSHIP: The first author has received funding from the Norwegian Extra Foundation.
Authors: Timothy P Hogan; Jennifer N Hill; Sara M Locatelli; Frances M Weaver; Florian P Thomas; Kim M Nazi; Barry Goldstein; Bridget M Smith Journal: PM R Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Renee Pekmezaris; Andrzej Kozikowski; Briana Pascarelli; John P Handrakis; Ashley Chory; Doug Griffin; Ona Bloom Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2019-05-16