Kurt D Knepley1, Jennifer Z Mao1,2,3, Peter Wieczorek1, Frederick O Okoye1, Abhi P Jain4, Noam Y Harel5,6. 1. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Buffalo General Medical Center, Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. James J. Peters VA Medical Center Neurology, New York, New York, USA. 6. Neurology and Rehabilitation & Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is the leading cause of serious long-term disability in the United States. Barriers to rehabilitation include cost, transportation, lack of trained personnel, and equipment. Telerehabilitation (TR) has emerged as a promising modality to reduce costs, improve accessibility, and retain patient independence. TR allows providers to remotely administer therapy, potentially increasing access to underserved regions. Objectives: To describe types of stroke rehabilitation therapy delivered through TR and to evaluate whether TR is as effective as traditional in-person outpatient therapy in improving satisfaction and poststroke residual deficits such as motor function, speech, and disability. Methods: A literature search of the term "telerehabilitation and stroke" was conducted across three databases. Full-text articles with results pertaining to TR interventions were reviewed. Articles were scored for methodological quality using the PEDro scale. Results: Thirty-four articles with 1,025 patients were included. Types of TR included speech therapy, virtual reality (VR), robotic, community-based, goal setting, and motor training exercises. Frequently measured outcomes included motor function, speech, disability, and satisfaction. All 34 studies reported improvement from baseline after TR therapy. PEDro scores ranged from 2 to 8 with a mean of 4.59 ± 1.94 (on a scale of 0-10). Studies with control interventions, randomized allocation, and blinded assessment had significantly higher PEDro scores. All 15 studies that compared TR with traditional therapy showed equivalent or better functional outcomes. Home-based robotic therapy and VR were less costly than in-person therapy. Patient satisfaction with TR and in-person clinical therapy was similar. Conclusions: TR is less costly and equally as effective as clinic-based rehabilitation at improving functional outcomes in stroke patients. TR produces similar patient satisfaction. TR can be combined with other therapies, including VR, speech, and robotic assistance, or used as an adjuvant to direct in-person care.
Background: Stroke is the leading cause of serious long-term disability in the United States. Barriers to rehabilitation include cost, transportation, lack of trained personnel, and equipment. Telerehabilitation (TR) has emerged as a promising modality to reduce costs, improve accessibility, and retain patient independence. TR allows providers to remotely administer therapy, potentially increasing access to underserved regions. Objectives: To describe types of stroke rehabilitation therapy delivered through TR and to evaluate whether TR is as effective as traditional in-person outpatient therapy in improving satisfaction and poststroke residual deficits such as motor function, speech, and disability. Methods: A literature search of the term "telerehabilitation and stroke" was conducted across three databases. Full-text articles with results pertaining to TR interventions were reviewed. Articles were scored for methodological quality using the PEDro scale. Results: Thirty-four articles with 1,025 patients were included. Types of TR included speech therapy, virtual reality (VR), robotic, community-based, goal setting, and motor training exercises. Frequently measured outcomes included motor function, speech, disability, and satisfaction. All 34 studies reported improvement from baseline after TR therapy. PEDro scores ranged from 2 to 8 with a mean of 4.59 ± 1.94 (on a scale of 0-10). Studies with control interventions, randomized allocation, and blinded assessment had significantly higher PEDro scores. All 15 studies that compared TR with traditional therapy showed equivalent or better functional outcomes. Home-based robotic therapy and VR were less costly than in-person therapy. Patient satisfaction with TR and in-person clinical therapy was similar. Conclusions: TR is less costly and equally as effective as clinic-based rehabilitation at improving functional outcomes in strokepatients. TR produces similar patient satisfaction. TR can be combined with other therapies, including VR, speech, and robotic assistance, or used as an adjuvant to direct in-person care.
Authors: Laurie E Powell; Jeff Gau; Ann Glang; John D Corrigan; Meghan Ramirez; Jody Slocumb Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Hsiang-Yun Chou; Yu-Chun Lo; Ya-Wen Tsai; Chia-Li Shih; Chieh-Ting Yeh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Peter H Wilson; Jeffrey M Rogers; Karin Vogel; Bert Steenbergen; Thomas B McGuckian; Jonathan Duckworth Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Blandine Chapel; François Alexandre; Nelly Heraud; Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei; Anne-Sophie Cases; François Bughin; Maurice Hayot Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 2.908