Effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review the effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults.

Data sources

Articles published in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase (Ovid) from 01 January 2010 up to 17 October 2023.

Review Methods

Included studies had (1) a randomised controlled trial design, (2) an average population age of 65 years or older, (3) a home-based setting and (4) evaluated the effectiveness of functional performance outcome measures. The intervention was considered telerehabilitation when guided by a healthcare professional using video, audio and/or text communication technologies with a minimum frequency of once per week. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 statement guideline was followed. Methodological quality was appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

A total of 26 randomised controlled trials were included. Telerehabilitation had superior (N = 15), non-superior (N = 16) or non-inferior (N = 11) effectiveness for improving functional performance outcome measures compared to control interventions. No studies found the control intervention to be superior over telerehabilitation. Between study differences in intervention characteristics contributed to significant clinical heterogeneity. Five studies were found to present an overall ‘low’ risk of bias, 12 studies to present ‘some’ risk of bias and 9 studies to present an overall ‘high’ risk of bias.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that telerehabilitation could be a promising alternative to in-person rehabilitation for improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults. Additional well-designed studies with minimised bias are needed for a better understanding of effective telerehabilitation intervention strategies.

Keywords

Telerehabilitation effectiveness older adults functional performance

Introduction

Rehabilitation represents a core component of healthcare services provided for many conditions community-dwelling older adults may be affected by.^1,2 Geriatric rehabilitation is defined as ‘a multidimensional approach of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, the purpose of which is to optimise functional capacity, promote activity and preserve functional reserve and social participation in older people with disabling impairments’.³ Given the aging population, workforce shortages and increased demand for geriatric rehabilitation,⁴ healthcare systems are engaged in a process of innovation to improve efficiency.^5,6

Recently, innovative information and communication technologies have provided convenient and affordable tools to extend healthcare services across geographic, time and economic barriers.⁷ Telerehabilitation, defined as ‘the delivery of rehabilitation interventions to patients at a distance using information and communication technologies’,⁸ allows for substituting the traditional in-person approach for rehabilitation at any place and any time, guided remotely by healthcare professionals. Over time, additional telerehabilitation advantages have emerged, such as the possibility to better integrate patient skills into daily life⁹ and to allow for efficient monitoring of rehabilitation progress.^10,11

Despite these benefits, the lack of digital literacy, safety issues and age-related conditions could impair the use of telerehabilitation in an older adult population.^12,13 However, higher age alone was found not to be an obstacle when using telerehabilitation.¹⁴ In fact, as early as 2006, the possible feasibility and effectiveness of home-based telerehabilitation in geriatric patients was already demonstrated.¹⁵ Moreover, global data shows that engagement with internet facilities among older adults has tripled to 67% since 2004.¹⁶ Additionally, safety issues have previously been successfully addressed in telerehabilitation research by involving patients’ partner or other informal caregivers to supervise exercises.^17–20

A growing body of literature reviews support the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for improving health outcomes for neurological,^21–24 oncological,²⁵ musculoskeletal^9,26–28 and cardiopulmonary conditions.^29–31 However, only a limited number of literature reviews have more specifically targeted community-dwelling older adults.^7,32–35 Evidence of these reviews suggest that telerehabilitation can achieve equal outcomes when compared to conventional rehabilitation methods. Yet, the generalisability of this evidence for community-dwelling older adults is limited, due to focussing specifically on the South-East Asia region,³² focussing on one specific telerehabilitation methodology,³⁴ including middle-aged adults,³⁵ not exclusively including home-based interventions^33,34 or not following reporting guidelines.^7,33

For older adults in need of rehabilitation, the main recommendation is to improve the outcome of functional performance.³ An older adult's functional performance is influenced by many factors, such as postural control and stability, lower extremity strength, dynamic balance and overall endurance.³⁶ While there is no generally accepted definition of functional performance, the essence is ‘the ability to safely and effectively perform functional tasks necessary for daily living’.³⁶ Currently, no previous review has primarily focused on the construct of functional performance as the outcome measure of interest. Therefore, the aim of this review is to (1) study the current evidence on the effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance for community-dwelling older adults and (2) determine if telerehabilitation is non-inferior in results to conventional, in-person rehabilitation.

Methods

This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.³⁷ The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 05 July 2020 with protocol ID CRD42020179231.

The main author (CJG) developed the search strategy which was reviewed by an experienced librarian of Maastricht University, as well as the co-authors (JCMH and JMGAS) for completeness. The following databases for studies published from 01 January 2010 up to 17 October 2023 were searched: Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Library and Embase (Ovid). Only research published after 01 January 2010 was included due to significant and impactful developments made in communication technologies in recent years. Databases were first searched in April through May 2020, updated in January through April 2022, with final updates in May and October 2023. The search strategy included subject headings and keywords to capture the concepts of telerehabilitation, older adults and randomised controlled trial type publications. An adapted version of the high sensitivity randomised controlled trial search strategy was applied.³⁸ The search strategy was adjusted to be appropriate for each included database. All search strategies can be found in the Supplemental files (page 2–4). For all studies accepted at the full text level, we conducted a forward citation search as well as reviewing reference lists to identify potential additional articles. Lastly, systematic reviews published since 01 January 2010 on a similar subject matter were reviewed for additional references. All identified citations were uploaded to EndNote (X9.3.3, Thomson Reuters).

Study selection

All database search results were merged and uploaded to EndNote with duplicate records removed. The remaining papers were first screened on title and subsequently on abstract, performed by the main author (CJG). The remaining potentially relevant reports were then examined at the full text level by the main author (CJG) and one co-author (JCMH). The co-author (JMGAS) adjudicated for unclear decisions. Studies were included based on the established inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The following inclusion criteria were applied. Randomised controlled trial publications in the English language were included. The population of interest were community-dwelling older adults with an average age of 65 years or older. The study setting was home-based, independent living situations. Telerehabilitation was defined as ‘the delivery of rehabilitation interventions to patients at a distance using information and communication technologies’.⁸ For the purpose of this review, a broad interpretation of this definition was adopted to gain a comprehensive overview of methods of application. Thus, studies on telerehabilitation were included as ‘any rehabilitation intervention aimed to optimise functional performance, promote activity and preserve functional reserve and social participation, that was guided by a healthcare professional by video, audio and/or text communication technologies’. Guidance was defined as ‘direct contact via information and communication technologies between the healthcare professional and patient’. A minimum of 75% guidance by telerehabilitation was required for inclusion, to allow for occasional in-person visits. The method of information and communication technology chosen determined the guidance synchronicity of the study rehabilitation intervention. Guidance synchronicity refers to whether each study intervention session was guided real-time or not, where synchronous guidance (e.g. videoconferencing) is simultaneous to the study intervention and a-synchronous guidance (e.g. phone, app or web-based communication) is a-synchronous to the study intervention. Guidance frequency was set at a minimum of once per week, on the basis that treatment must be provided that aligns with clinical practise guidelines and evidence-based recommendations.^12,39 The control intervention was considered to be usual care, an alternative form of in-person rehabilitation or no care. The control group could not be an alternative form of telerehabilitation. The outcome measure of interest was the construct of functional performance.³ An older adult's functional performance is influenced by many factors and cannot be captured in a single performance test.³⁶ Therefore, several specific performance tests were pre-determined to assess the construct of functional performance³⁶: 6-minute walking distance,^40–42 Timed-Up-and–Go test,^43,44 Berg Balance Scale,^45,46 Shuttle Walk test,^40,42 Sit-To-Stand test⁴⁷ and 10m walk test.⁴⁸ These tests have shown adequate reliability and validity and represent the multicomponent domains of cardiorespiratory endurance, balance, stability, muscular strength and functional mobility that contribute to functional performance.³⁶

Data extraction

The main author (CJG) was responsible for extracting the following information from the included studies using an adapted version of the Cochrane collaboration data collection form: author; publication year; country of origin; funding; conflict of interest; population (n), sex, age, primary medical condition; recruitment and retention; setting; intervention and control groups, intervention modality and details, frequency of guidance, frequency of use; adverse events and safety measures. The main author (CJG) and co-author (JCMH) were responsible for extracting the following information critical to the interpretation of results in order to minimise errors and reduce potential biases: study outcomes and main findings.

Risk of bias assessment

The revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomised studies was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies.⁴⁹ By this tool, the risk of bias was assessed on the following domains: the randomisation process, deviations from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported results. Each domain consists of several signalling questions for assigning one of the three levels of risk of bias judgement. The main author (CJG) was responsible for rating each domain as having ‘low risk’ of bias, ‘some concerns’ for bias or having a ‘high risk’ of bias, resulting in a corresponding overall score for each study. The co-authors (JCMH and JMGAS) adjudicated for unclear decisions.

Results

The search strategy identified 24,660 studies in total. After the removal of duplicates, 14,386 studies were screened on title and abstract, after which 14,030 studies were excluded. The remaining 356 studies were assessed full-text for eligibility. Based on this assessment, 331 studies were excluded with reasons including unavailable full text reports (n = 18), ineligible participant age (n = 38), ineligible guidance criteria (n = 151), ineligible outcome measures (n = 74), ineligible setting (n = 16) or other (n = 34). One study was identified from other sources, as described in the search strategy. A total of 26 eligible studies were identified and included in this review. The process is outlined in the flow diagram below (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews flow diagram.

Study characteristics

The study characteristics of the 26 included studies are outlined in Table 1. Further study details can be found in the Supplemental files. The included studies originated from the United States (n = 4),^50–53 South-Korea (n = 4),^54–57 Australia (n = 3),^58–60 Italy (n = 3),^18,61,62 Canada (n = 3),^17,63,64 China (n = 3),^19,20,65 Turkey (n = 2),^66,67 the United Kingdom (n = 1),⁶⁸ Denmark (n = 1),⁶⁹ Norway (n = 1)⁷⁰ and Cyprus (n = 1).⁷¹ The number of participants in any single study varied from 20 to 306, with the lowest reported mean study age being 65.0 (± 8.0) years and the highest reported mean study age 83.0 (± 4.8) years. Among the 26 included studies, the following medical conditions were reported; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 5),^{58,60,62,68,69} total knee arthroplasty (n = 4),^17,50,56,63 chronic heart failure (n = 4),^19,59,62,70 total hip arthroplasty (n = 1),⁶⁴ coronary artery disease (n = 1),⁶⁵ stroke (n = 1),²⁰ chronic lower back pain (n = 1),⁵² Parkinson's disease (n = 1),¹⁸ Alzheimer's disease (n = 1),⁶⁶ COVID-19 (n = 1)⁶⁷ and sarcopenia (n = 1).⁵⁴ Six studies reported on community-dwelling older adults with increased fall risk,^{51,53,55,57,61,71} with no specific medical condition pre-defined.

Table 1.

Study characteristics and main findings of included randomised controlled studies (n = 26).

	Telerehabilitation guidance characteristics		Study details				PopulationN, mean age ± SD
Study	Guidance methodology	Guidance frequency	Study aim	Intervention duration	FP outcome measure(s)	Main findings ‡	Intervention	Control
Alpozgen et al. ⁶⁷	Videoconference by Skype	3× weekly	To study the effects of tele-exercise on physical fitness, quality of life, loneliness and mood of older individuals in isolation during the coronavirus pandemic.	6 weeks	TUG*** STS	TUG ++: significant time effect (P = .017); significant group by time interaction (P = .01) STS ++: significant time effect (P = .001); significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001)	N = 15, 67.1 (±3.7)	N = 15, 69.3 (±5.6)
An et al. ⁵⁶	Videoconference setup details not reported	2× working day	To investigate the effects of two separate pre-operative telerehabilitation programmes for 3 weeks in patients undergoing TKA	3 weeks	TUG	TUG ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001)	N = 18, 71.1 (±3.3)¹ N = 17, 70.1 (±2.4)²	N = 18, 70.4 (±2.6)
Bernocchi et al. ⁶²	Telephone (voice) and peripherals	1× weekly	To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of a telerehabilitation programme compared to conventional care COPD and CHF patients	4 months	6MWD	6MWD ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .0001)	N = 56, 71 (±9)	N = 56, 70 (±9.5)
Bernocchi et al. ⁶¹	Telephone (voice) Videoconference setup not reported	1× weekly 2× monthly	To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of a telerehabilitation programme in community-dwelling elders with fall risk and 1 or more chronic condition*	6 months	BBS TUG	BBS ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001) TUG ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001)	N = 141, 77.9 (±6.0)	N = 142, 79.3 (±7.0)
Chaplin et al. ⁶⁸	Telephone (voice) with email-based communications	1× weekly	To determine if an interactive web-based pulmonary rehabilitation programme is a feasible alternative to conventional pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients	11 ± 4 weeks based on milestones	ESWT ISWT	ESWT +: significant time effect (P ≤ .01); no significant between-group difference (P NR) ISWT Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant between-group difference (P NR)	N = 51, 66.4 (±10.1)	N = 52, 66.1 (±8.1)
Chen et al. ²⁰	Custom videoconferencing setup	2× working day	To determine the effectiveness of home-based telesupervising rehabilitation on function recovery for stroke patients with hemiplegia	12 weeks	BBS	BBS +: significant time effect (P ≤ .001); no significant group by time interaction (P = .912)	N = 27, 66.5 (±12.1)	N = 27, 66.2 (±12.3)
Doiron-Cadrin et al. ⁶⁴	Ipad with videoconferencing software	2× weekly	To evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of a teleprehabilitation programme for patients awaiting a THA or TKA, compared to in-person prehabilitation or usual care	12 weeks	TUG	TUG Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P = .282)	N = 11, 69.9 (±9.1)	N = 11, 66.7 (±9.2) N = 11, 61.3 (±8.1)**
Gandolfi et al. ¹⁸	Videoconference by laptop. Nintendo Wii + peripherals used	3× weekly	To compare improvements in postural stability after in-home virtual reality-based balance training and in-clinic training in PD patients	7 weeks	BBS	BBS +: significant time effect (P ≤ .001); no significant group-time effect (P = NR)	N = 38, 67 (±7)	N = 38, 70 (±9)
Goode et al. ⁵²	Telephone (voice)	1× weekly	To evaluate the effects of two home-based telephone-supported physical activity programmes for older adults with chronic lower back pain	12 weeks	TUG	TUG +: significant time effect (P = NR, based on Cohen d .28-.31) ****	N = 20, 69.6 (±3.5)¹ N = 20, 69.5 (±4.0)²	N = 20, 71.9 (±6.5)
Hansen et al. ⁶⁹	Custom videoconferencing setup	3× weekly	To investigate whether pulmonary telerehabilitation is superior to conventional pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients	10 weeks	6MWD STS	6MWD +: significant time effect (P < .05); no significant group by time interaction (P NR) STS +: significant time effect (P < .05); no significant group by time interaction (P NR)	N = 67, 68.4 (±8.7)	N = 67, 68.2, (±9.4)
Holland et al. ⁵⁸	Telephone (voice)	1× weekly	To assess whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation has equivalent outcomes to centre-based rehabilitation in COPD patients	8 weeks	6MWD	6MWD Δ: no significant group by time interaction (P NR) ****	N = 80, 69 (±13)	N = 86, 69 (±10)
Hong et al. ⁵⁴	Custom videoconferencing setup	3× weekly	To investigate the effects of tele-exercise on improvement of sarcopenia-related factors and functional fitness among community-dwelling elderly	12 weeks	TUG*** STS	TUG Δ: no significant time effect (P = .183); no significant group by time interaction (P = .956) STS +: significant time effect (P = .035); no significant group by time interaction (P = .158)	N = 11 82.2 (±5.6)	N = 12, 81.5 (±4.4)
Hong et al. ⁵⁵	Tablet with videoconferencing software	3× weekly	To evaluate the effects of a 12-week telepresence exercise programme on fall related risk factors in community-dwelling elderly women with a high risk of falling	12 weeks	BBS TUG*** STS	BBS ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .03) TUG Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P = .40) STS ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001)	N = 15, 78.1 ± 5.66	N = 15, 81.54 ± 5.07
Hwang et al. ⁵⁹	Videoconference by laptop and peripherals	2× weekly	To determine if a home-based telerehabilitation programme is non-inferior to a traditional centre-based programme in CHF patients	12 weeks	6MWD TUG 10MWT	6MWD +: significant time effect (P = .048); no significant group by time interaction (P = .24) TUG Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P NR) 10MWT Δ: No significant time effect (P NR); No significant group by time interaction (P NR)	N = 24, 68 (±14)	N = 29, 67 (±11)
Li et al. ⁶⁵	Unclear, guidance by ‘WeChat’ app	1× daily	To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 6-week home-based online supervised exercise programme	6 weeks	TUG 6MWD STS	TUG +: significant time effect (P = .001, 95% CI 0.3–1.2). 6MWD ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .001) STS ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001)	N = 47, 65.3 (±8.7)	N = 48, 67.7 (±7.6)
Light et al. ⁵³	Telephone (voice)	1× weekly	To determine the effect of a home-based rehabilitation programme + telephone calls on balance control in older adults at risk of falling	12 weeks	BBS	BBS ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .039)	N = NR	N = NR
Lundgren et al. ⁷⁰	Videoconference by IPad	2× weekly	To determine whether home-based telerehabilitation could increase physical activity in CHF patients	12 weeks	6MWD	6MWD +: significant time effect (P = .02), no significant group by time interaction (P = .741)	N = 31, 67.6 (±10.9)	N = 30, 67.7 (±11.9)
Menengi et al. ⁶⁶	Videoconferencing by PC or tablet using Zoom	4–5× weekly	To investigate the effectiveness of exercise treatment via home-based telerehabilitation in AD patients	6 weeks	TUG	TUG: ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .002)	N = 10, 77.7 (±5.3)	N = 10, 80.6 (±6.1)
Moffet et al. ⁶³	Custom videoconferencing setup	2× weekly	To determine whether in-home telerehabilitation following a TKA, is equivalent to a face-to-face home visit approach	2 months	6MWD	6MWD Δ: no significant group by time interaction (P NR)****	N = 104, 65 (±8)	N = 101, 67 (±8)
Peng et al. ¹⁹	Telephone (app) software with webcam support	3–5× weekly	To examine the effects of a telehealth exercise training programme on health outcomes in CHF patients	8 weeks	6MWD	6MWD ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .01)	N = 49, NR Mean study age was 66.3 (±10.5)	N = 49, NR Mean study age was 66.3 (±10.5)
Prvu Bettger et al. ⁵⁰	Custom videoconferencing setup	1× weekly	To examine costs and clinical non-inferiority of a virtual physical therapy programme compared with traditional therapy after TKA	12 weeks	10MWT (after 6 weeks)	10MWT Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P = .199)	N = 151, 65.4 (±7.7)	N = 153, 65.1 (±9.2)
Tousignant et al. ¹⁷	Custom videoconferencing setup	2× weekly	To investigate the clinical efficacy of telerehabilitation at home for patients following discharge after total TKA	8 weeks	BBS TUG STS	BBS +: significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P NR) TUG +: significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P NR) STS +: significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P NR)	N = 21, 66 (±10)	N = 20, 66 (±13)
Tsai et al. ⁶⁰	Videoconference by laptop and peripherals	3× weekly	To examine the effectiveness of videoconferencing telerehabilitation on improving exercise capacity in patients with COPD compared with usual care	8 weeks	ESWT ISWT 6MWD	ESWT ++: significant group by time interaction (P ≤ .001) ISWT Δ: no significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P = .66) 6MWD +: significant time effect (P NR); no significant group by time interaction (P = .16)	N = 19, 73 (±8)	N = 17, 75 (±9)
Wu et al. ⁵¹	Custom videoconferencing setup	3× weekly	To examine the effectiveness of a Tai-Chi tele-exercise programme among community-dwelling elders at risk for falls	15 weeks	TUG	TUG Δ: no significant time effect (P = .60); no significant between-group difference (P = .80)	N = 22, 76.1 (±7.9)	N = 20, 74.1 (±6.9) N = 22, 75.9 (±6.3)**
Yerlikaya et al. ⁷¹	Videoconference. Setup details not reported	3× weekly	To investigate the effectiveness of a home-based interactive telerehabilitation programme with a non-supervised home exercise programme in an older population	8 weeks	BBS TUG	BBS +: significant time effect (P ≤ .001) TUG +: significant time effect (P ≤ .001)	N = 18, 70.2 (±5.5)	N = 16, 75.6 (±8.7) N = 16, 71.8 (±6.6)**
Yi and Yim ⁵⁷	Live streaming by smartphone with a-synchronous telephone contact	2× weekly	To compare the effects of a remote home-based exercise programme to improve the mental state, balance, physical function and to prevent falls in adults aged 65 years and older	8 weeks	TUG 10MWT	TUG ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .009) 10MWT ++: significant group by time interaction (P = .003)	N = 35, 76.1 (±6.3)	N = 35, 77.3 (±5.6)

Main findings from reported results: ++ = Telerehabilitation has a significant group by time interaction, indicating superiority over the control intervention. + = Telerehabilitation only has a significant time effect, indicating non-superiority over the control intervention. Δ = Telerehabilitation has a non-significant time effect and a non-significant group by time interaction (or a non-significant between group difference if no interaction reported), indicating non-inferiority with the control intervention.

P-value is significant if < .05;¹= Study intervention group 1; ²= Study intervention group 2.

‡ Findings are summarised to main effects by statistical significance. Exact effect measures are reported in the Supplemental Table 3.

*Chronic cardiac, respiratory, neurological or neuromuscular condition(s). **Respective study intervention group, but considered control as it did not meet criteria of this review. ***Eight-foot up and go test was equated with the TUG. ****Results determined in respective study by mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.

6MWD: 6-minute Walking Distance test; 10MWT: 10 m walk test; AD: Alzheimer's disease; BBS: Berg Balance Scale; CHF: chronic heart failure; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder; DM: diabetes mellitus; ESWT: Endurance Shuttle Walk test; FP: functional performance; ISWT: Incremental Shuttle Walk test; N: number of participants; NR: not reported; OA: osteoarthritis; PD: Parkinson's disease; SD: standard deviation; STS:30 s sit to stand test; THA: total hip arthroplasty; TKA: total knee arthroplasty; TUG: Timed-Up-and-Go test.

Between-study differences in intervention characteristics, such as pre-intervention training, intervention and study duration, intervention frequency, guidance frequency, guidance synchronicity, intervention contents and intensity, individual-based or group-based intervention, etc., contributed greatly to significant clinical heterogeneity. This significant clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We therefore qualitatively evaluated the study's primary outcomes and the estimate of effect by providing a comprehensive narrative summary. The following summary of intervention characteristics of included studies is presented.

Telerehabilitation guidance was either synchronously or a-synchronously with the study intervention. Sixteen studies applied synchronous two-way videoconferencing as the mode of delivery for telerehabilitation,^{17,18,20,50,51,54,55,59,60,63,64,66,67,69–71} while six studies used a-synchronous modes of delivery, namely telephone (voice) communication,^52,53,58,62 telephone (app)⁶⁵ and telephone (voice) with email-based communication.⁶⁸ Three studies applied a combination of synchronous and a-synchronous guidance methods, namely telephone (voice) communication supported by videoconference,^57,61 and telephone (app) communication with two-way webcam support.¹⁹ Lastly, one study used two intervention groups, one with synchronous (videoconferencing) and one with an a-synchronous (telephone (voice)) guidance method.⁵⁶ Two studies applied additional modalities, namely videoconferencing combined with a Nintendo-Wii console¹⁸ and videoconferencing combined with virtual reality.⁵⁰

Telerehabilitation guidance frequency ranged from as often as two times daily to the minimum of once weekly. Nine studies had a guidance frequency of three times weekly,^{18,19,51,54,55,60,67,69,71} six studies had a guidance frequency of two times weekly,^{17,57,59,63,64,70} seven studies had a guidance frequency of once weekly^{50,52,53,58,61,62,68} and two studies had a guidance frequency of two times daily.^20,56 Study intervention durations varied from 3 weeks to 6 months, with the majority being 12 weeks.^{20,50,52–55,59,64,70} The duration of individual rehabilitation sessions varied from 20 to 60 minutes, with the majority being 60 minutes.^{17,20,51,59,60,63,69,70}

Rehabilitation contents varied across studies: a combination of endurance and resistance training,^{19,58–62,65,68,70} a combination of exercises for improving function,^{17,56,57,63,64} a combination of resistance, endurance and balance training,⁵³ a combination of resistance, balance training and stretching,⁶⁷ a combination of resistance and balance training,^55,71 a combination of resistance training and stretching,⁵² only resistance training,⁵⁴ only endurance training,⁶⁹ only balance training,¹⁸ a combination of chair-based exercises with cognitive tasks,⁶⁶ a combination of physical exercise with electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation technique,²⁰ Tai-Chi specific exercises⁵¹ and one study was unclear about the specifics of exercise components.⁵⁰ Lastly, one study specifically mentioned using cognitive behavioural techniques in the rehabilitation intervention.⁵²

Ten studies^{17–20,53,59,61,62,66,70} accounted for safety measures during telerehabilitation interventions, which generally required a family member or caregiver to be present to assist if necessary. Lundgren et al.⁷⁰ described performing pre-intervention exercise testing and monitoring all exercises performed real-time in front of the tablet computer, while having addresses and telephone numbers readily available. Bernocchi et al.⁶¹ also had a nurse tutor available 24h a day in the case of urgent need or an emergency. In two studies,^19,60 a heart rate monitor or an SpO₂ device was provided in order to monitor participants from a distance.

Ten studies^{18,20,50,58–61,68,70,71} provided pre-intervention training or familiarity sessions with the intervention technology. Hong et al.^54,55 described providing a PC-operation manual and TeamViewer remote assistance but no in-person information session, while Tousignant et al.¹⁷ provided family member training for technology familiarity.

Fifteen studies used usual care for their studies’ respective medical condition as the control group type.^{17,20,50,51,53,56,58,59,61–64,67–70} One study applied in-clinic sensory integration training as the control group,¹⁸ one study applied general advice with regular clinical follow-ups,¹⁹ one study provided in-person health education and a non-supervised home exercise programme,⁶⁵ one study provided usual medical management without exercise training,⁶⁰ while seven studies used daily routines without any interventions as the control group.^{52,54,55,57,66,67,71}

Telerehabilitation interventions were group based in eight studies,^{18,51,57,59,60,69–71} with all other studies having individual guidance contact. Four studies^50,61,63,64 specified to combine telerehabilitation with face-to-face therapy in case of particular needs, the remaining studies did not or made no mention of providing it.

Adverse events were reported in 17 studies,^{18–20,50,52,58–67,69,70} of which 11 studies^{18–20,52,58,61,62,65–67,70} described no adverse events occurred during the telerehabilitation intervention. The adverse events in the remaining six studies^{50,59,60,63,64,69} were described as minor or unrelated to the telerehabilitation intervention and were not significantly different between intervention and control groups.

Effectiveness of telerehabilitation

Effectiveness of functional performance outcome measures for the telerehabilitation intervention compared to the control intervention are presented in Table 1. Findings are summarised to main effects by statistical significance. Full exact effect measures are presented in the Supplemental files (Table 3).

Results on effectiveness are presented on each reported outcome measure separately (n = 43). Eleven studies (16 outcome measures) found a significant group by time interaction for the telerehabilitation intervention, indicating superiority over the control intervention.^{19,53,55–57,60–62,65–67} Twelve studies (16 outcome measures) found a significant improvement over time for the telerehabilitation intervention, with no (reported) significant group by time interaction, indicating non-superiority over the control intervention.^{17,18,20,52,54,59,60,65,68–71} Nine studies (11 outcome measures) found no significant improvement over time for the telerehabilitation intervention, with no (reported) significant group by time interaction, indicating non-inferiority with the control intervention.^{50,51,54,55,58,60,63,64,68} Lastly, no studies found a significant group by time interaction in favour of the control intervention, indicating no studies found the control intervention to be superior over the telerehabilitation intervention.

Methodological quality

Figure 2 summarises the results of the risk of bias assessment using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials.⁴⁹ Five studies were found to present an overall ‘low’ risk of bias, 12 studies to present ‘some’ risk of bias and 9 studies to present an overall ‘high’ risk of bias. The quality of evidence was low-to-moderate across each of the three tiers of effectiveness in included studies. The most common methodological limitations were in domains 2 and 5. Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and healthcare professionals was mostly not possible, which is a known challenge for telerehabilitation trials.⁷² Therefore, no points on methodological quality were deducted due to this reason. More information on the risk of bias assessment is found in the Supplemental files (Table 4).

Figure 2.

Summary of the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool for randomised trials.⁴⁹.

Discussion

Twenty-six randomised controlled trials reporting on the effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation for improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults were identified in this review. Eleven studies found the effect measures of telerehabilitation to be significantly superior to the control intervention, while no studies found the control intervention to be superior over telerehabilitation. These findings suggest that telerehabilitation can be effective over time for improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults and could be a capable alternative to conventional in-person care. However, the methodological quality of evidence was low-to-moderate, indicating caution when interpreting these findings.

This review adds to the findings of previous reviews evaluating the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in community-dwelling older adults.^7,32–35 Our findings are in accordance with Batsis et al.³⁴ and Saito et al.,³² who found telerehabilitation capable of reaching similar or superior outcomes compared to conventional rehabilitation interventions, yet emphasised the need for well-designed studies with minimised bias. However, this review is the first to use a broad definition of telerehabilitation, to adhere to current clinical guidelines and use no inclusion criteria for geographical barriers.

Currently, no evidence-based guideline exists for providing telerehabilitation interventions to community-dwelling older adults. Knowledge is lacking of which intervention characteristics constitute effective telerehabilitation intervention strategies.¹² This has become apparent by the vast array of intervention characteristics throughout included studies. When considering the characteristic of guidance, for example, we have specifically chosen to include those studies that follow current (in-person) clinical guidelines on guidance frequency criteria for their respective medical condition. Reviews by Batsis et al.³⁴ and Cottrell et al.²⁷ have attempted to specify another key intervention characteristic, namely guidance synchronicity. Batsis et al.³⁴ defined ‘ambulatory telemedicine’ as live, synchronous two-way videoconferencing under the premise this was most commonly used and reimbursed. Cottrell et al.²⁷ only included trials utilising synchronous telerehabilitation mediums, explaining this method is more reflective of conventional face-to-face interventions. For several trials within the current review,^{17,20,51,59,63} the synchronous guided exercise protocols were identical between both the telerehabilitation and control groups. Thus, any difference in results should be considered as a reflection of the method of treatment delivery. Additionally, considering in-person interventions are currently still favoured by the older adult population,⁷³ it might explain why synchronous guided telerehabilitation interventions are found in 71% of studies included in the current review. In contrast, Bini et al.⁷⁴ argues that attempts to recreate in-person interventions digitally will inevitably fall short, due to methodological, technical and planning issues. Instead, independently performed interventions with a-synchronous guidance are likely easier to implement, less costly and more effective than synchronous guidance strategies.⁷⁴ Moreover, a-synchronous guided interventions provide the most flexibility for rehabilitation at ‘any place at any time’. Still, the impact of specific methods of guidance synchronicity on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions has not been determined.⁷⁵ Similarly, the current review found heterogeneous intervention characteristics across all levels of methodological quality evidence and effect measure sizes. Accordingly, the impact of these characteristics on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation could not be determined.

We acknowledge several strengths and limitations for the evidence identified within this review. By using the PRISMA criteria, we reduced inherent bias and error that are present in conducting systematic reviews. Moreover, by utilising the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials, deficiencies in methodological quality and standards of reporting were revealed. However, this review also has some limitations. First, publication and selection bias might be present. Since the search strategy was performed in three databases, it is possible that some publications may have been missed. Selection bias in included studies could be present as all but four studies excluded participants with exercise limiting conditions due to comorbidities, other than the primary condition. Moreover, three studies had specific digital literacy inclusion criteria for participants, which might impede the generalisability of results for the community-dwelling older adult population. Second, studies were selected using a specified set of outcome measures to cover the construct of functional performance. As this set was not all encompassing, it is possible that some publications were omitted. Third, significant clinical heterogeneity, particularly regarding the abundance of intervention characteristics, precluded meta-analysis, which might have strengthened the results. Lastly, the risk of bias assessment scored ‘high’ or ‘some concerns’ for bias in 21 included studies (81%). However, five of these studies were only missing data in one domain, with the remaining domains scoring ‘no risk’ of bias. This may have caused the overall risk of bias score to be skewed towards unfavourable, potentially diminishing the impact of bias in included studies.

While the findings of this study underscore the potential of telerehabilitation, more well-designed studies are needed to provide definitive findings on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions for improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults. Further understanding on the impact of potentially relevant intervention characteristics is needed to add clarity to future studies on telerehabilitation and help form guidelines for healthcare practise.⁷⁶ Moreover, no studies included in this review applied routine in-person visits for the intervention groups. With the increase in frail community-dwelling older adults, the future of geriatric telerehabilitation will likely involve a balance of in-person and remote care.¹² Lastly, the contents and results of this review are presented at a tipping point in time following the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rules, regulations and policies were altered to enable widespread use of technology-supported healthcare interventions as opposed to in-person visits.^77,78 These circumstances offer key opportunities to further investigate whether telerehabilitation has the potential of becoming a sustainable solution for the aging population with need for rehabilitation services.

Clinical messages

As the global population age increases, integrating technology-driven interventions like telerehabilitation in elderly care can increase accessibility and ultimately contribute to improved outcomes for older adults with need for rehabilitation services.

Uniformly conceptualised intervention characteristics can add clarity to future studies on telerehabilitation and help form guidelines for healthcare practise.

Well-designed telerehabilitation research is lacking in community-dwelling older adults, particularly when combined with in-person visits.

Collaborative efforts between the fields of research, clinicians and technology developers are critical to optimise the telerehabilitation landscape for older adults.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cre-10.1177_02692155231217411 - Supplemental material for Effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cre-10.1177_02692155231217411 for Effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review by CJ Gamble, JCM van Haastregt, EF van Dam van Isselt, SMG Zwakhalen and JMGA Schols in Clinical Rehabilitation

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the technical assistance of the Maastricht University Librarian (G.F) to the strategies for database searches.

Author contributions

CJG, JCMH and JMGAS contributed to conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, resources and writing – original draft preparation. CJG was involved in software. CJG and JMGAS were involved in data curation and project administration. JMGAS contributed to supervision. All the authors were involved in validation, formal analysis, visualisation, and writing – review and editing; and have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

C.J. Gamble

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Organization WH. Rehabilitation, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation (2020).

Kosse

Dutmer

Dasenbrock

, et al. Effectiveness and feasibility of early physical rehabilitation programs for geriatric hospitalized patients: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2013; 13: 107.

Grund

Gordon

van Balen

, et al. European consensus on core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation: consensus statement. Eur Geriatr Med 2020; 11: 233–238.

Achterberg

Cameron

Bauer

, et al. Geriatric rehabilitation-state of the art and future priorities. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019; 20: 396–398.

Peretti

Amenta

Tayebati

, et al. Telerehabilitation: review of the state-of-the-art and areas of application. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2017; 4: e7.

Rogante

Grigioni

Cordella

, et al. Ten years of telerehabilitation: a literature overview of technologies and clinical applications. NeuroRehabilitation 2010; 27: 287–304.

Reeder

Chung

Stevens-Lapsley

. Current telerehabilitation research with older adults at home: an integrative review. J Gerontol Nurs 2016; 42: 15–20.

Laver

Adey-Wakeling

Crotty

, et al. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1: CD010255.

van Egmond

van der Schaaf

Vredeveld

, et al. Effectiveness of physiotherapy with telerehabilitation in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 2018; 104: 277–298.

10.

Patel

Park

Bonato

, et al. A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012; 9: 21.

11.

Alexander

Wilbik

Keller

, et al. Generating sensor data summaries to communicate change in elders’ health status. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5: 73–84.

12.

Oh-Park

Lew

Raghavan

. Telerehabilitation for geriatrics. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2021; 32: 291–305.

13.

Foster

Sethares

. Facilitators and barriers to the adoption of telehealth in older adults: an integrative review. Comput Inform Nurs 2014; 32: 523–533; quiz 534-525.

14.

Crotty

Killington

van den Berg

, et al. Telerehabilitation for older people using off-the-shelf applications: acceptability and feasibility. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20: 370–376.

15.

Tousignant

Boissy

Corriveau

, et al. In home telerehabilitation for older adults after discharge from an acute hospital or rehabilitation unit: a proof-of-concept study and costs estimation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006; 1: 209–216.

16.

Hunsaker

Hargittai

. A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media & Society 2018; 20: 3937–3954.

17.

Tousignant

Moffet

Boissy

, et al. A randomized controlled trial of home telerehabilitation for post-knee arthroplasty. J Telemed Telecare 2011; 17: 195–198.

18.

Gandolfi

Geroin

Dimitrova

, et al. Virtual reality telerehabilitation for postural instability in Parkinson's disease: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017: 7962826.

19.

Peng

, et al. Home-based telehealth exercise training program in Chinese patients with heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e12069.

20.

Chen

Jin

Dong

, et al. Effects of home-based telesupervising rehabilitation on physical function for stroke survivors with hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 96: 152–160.

21.

Amatya

Galea

Kesselring

, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions in persons with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2015; 4: 358–369.

22.

Cotelli

Manenti

Brambilla

, et al. Cognitive telerehabilitation in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2019; 25: 67–79.

23.

Appleby

Gill

Hayes

, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in the management of adults with stroke: a systematic review. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0225150.

24.

Sarfo

Ulasavets

Opare-Sem

, et al. Tele-rehabilitation after stroke: an updated systematic review of the literature. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 27: 2306–2318.

25.

Morrison

Paterson

Toohey

. The feasibility of exercise interventions delivered via telehealth for people affected by cancer: a rapid review of the literature. Semin Oncol Nurs 2020; 36: 151092.

26.

Wang

Hunter

Vesentini

, et al. Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 506.

27.

Cottrell

Galea

O'Leary

, et al. Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 625–638.

28.

Jiang

Xiang

Gao

, et al. The comparison of telerehabilitation and face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24: 257–262.

29.

Chan

Yamabayashi

Syed

, et al. Exercise telemonitoring and telerehabilitation compared with traditional cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiother Can 2016; 68: 242–251.

30.

Batalik

Filakova

Batalikova

, et al. Remotely monitored telerehabilitation for cardiac patients: a review of the current situation. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8: 1818–1831.

31.

Hwang

Bruning

Morris

, et al. A systematic review of the effects of telerehabilitation in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2015; 35: 380–389.

32.

Saito

Izawa

. Effectiveness and feasibility of home-based telerehabilitation for community-dwelling elderly people in Southeast Asian countries and regions: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res 2021; 33: 2657–2669.

33.

Velayati

Ayatollahi

Hemmat

. A systematic review of the effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions for therapeutic purposes in the elderly. Methods Inf Med 2020; 59: 104–109.

34.

Batsis

DiMilia

Seo

, et al. Effectiveness of ambulatory telemedicine care in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019; 67: 1737–1749.

35.

Ashe

Ekegren

Chudyk

, et al. Telerehabilitation for community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults after musculoskeletal trauma: a systematic review. AIMS Med Sci 2018; 5: 316–336.

36.

Lusardi

Pellecchia

Schulman

. Functional performance in community living older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2003; 26: 14–22.

37.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J 2021; 372: n71.

38.

Higgins

JPT

Chandler

Cumpston

, et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021; Available at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

39.

KNGF-richtlijnen. Richtlijnen, https://www.kngf.nl/kennisplatform/richtlijnen (2022).

40.

Singh

Puhan

Andrianopoulos

, et al. An official systematic review of the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society: measurement properties of field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1447–1478.

41.

Uszko-Lencer

Mesquita

Janssen

, et al. Reliability, construct validity and determinants of 6-minute walk test performance in patients with chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2017; 240: 285–290.

42.

Holland

Spruit

Troosters

, et al. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1428–1446.

43.

Podsiadlo

Richardson

. The Timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–148.

44.

Rydwik

Bergland

Forsén

, et al. Psychometric properties of Timed Up and Go in elderly people: a systematic review. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 2011; 29: 102–125.

45.

Berg

Wood-Dauphinee

Williams

. The balance scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 27–36.

46.

Steffen

Seney

. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 733–746.

47.

Hansen

Beyer

Frolich

, et al. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of the 6-minute walk test and the 30-second sit-to-stand test in patients with severe and very severe COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2018; 13: 3447–3457.

48.

Perera

Mody

Woodman

, et al. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54: 743–749.

49.

Sterne

JAC

Savović

Page

, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2019; 366: l4898.

50.

Prvu Bettger

Green

Holmes

, et al. Effects of virtual exercise rehabilitation in-home therapy compared with traditional care after total knee arthroplasty: VERITAS, a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg 2020; American volume, 102: 101–109.

51.

Keyes

Callas

, et al. Comparison of telecommunication, community, and home-based Tai Chi exercise programs on compliance and effectiveness in elders at risk for falls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 849–856.

52.

Goode

Taylor

Hastings

, et al. Effects of a home-based telephone-supported physical activity program for older adult veterans with chronic low back pain. Phys Ther 2018; 98: 369–380.

53.

Light

Bishop

Wright

. Telephone calls make a difference in home balance training outcomes: a randomized trial. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2016; 39: 97–101.

54.

Hong

Kim

, et al. Effects of home-based tele-exercise on sarcopenia among community-dwelling elderly adults: body composition and functional fitness. Exp Gerontol 2017; 87: 33–39.

55.

Hong

Kong

Yoon

. Web-based telepresence exercise program for community-dwelling elderly women with a high risk of falling: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6: e132.

56.

Ryu

Lyu

, et al. Effects of preoperative telerehabilitation on muscle strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes in candidates for total knee arthroplasty: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 6071.

57.

Yim

. Remote home-based exercise program to improve the mental state, balance, and physical function and prevent falls in adults aged 65 years and older during the COVID-19 pandemic in Seoul, Korea. Med Sci Monit 2021; 27: e935496.

58.

Holland

Mahal

Hill

, et al. Home-based rehabilitation for COPD using minimal resources: a randomised, controlled equivalence trial. Thorax 2017; 72: 57–65.

59.

Hwang

Bruning

Morris

, et al. Home-based telerehabilitation is not inferior to a centre-based program in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomised trial. J Physiother 2017; 63: 101–107.

60.

Tsai

LLY

McNamara

Moddel

, et al. Home-based telerehabilitation via real-time videoconferencing improves endurance exercise capacity in patients with COPD: the randomized controlled TeleR study. Respirology 2017; 22: 699–707.

61.

Bernocchi

Giordano

Pintavalle

, et al. Feasibility and clinical efficacy of a multidisciplinary home-telehealth program to prevent falls in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019; 20: 340–346.

62.

Bernocchi

Vitacca

La Rovere

, et al. Home-based telerehabilitation in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2018; 47: 82–88.

63.

Moffet

Tousignant

Nadeau

, et al. In-home telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 1129–1141.

64.

Doiron-Cadrin

Kairy

Vendittoli

, et al. Feasibility and preliminary effects of a tele-prehabilitation program and an in-person prehablitation program compared to usual care for total hip or knee arthroplasty candidates: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 42: 989–998.

65.

Liu

Wang

, et al. Efficacy of a 6-week home-based online supervised exercise program conducted during COVID-19 in patients with post percutaneous coronary intervention: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022; 9: 853376.

66.

Menengiç

Yeldan

Çınar

, et al. Effectiveness of motor-cognitive dual-task exercise via telerehabilitation in Alzheimer's disease: an online pilot randomized controlled study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2022; 223: 107501.

67.

Zengin Alpozgen

Kardes

Acikbas

, et al. The effectiveness of synchronous tele-exercise to maintain the physical fitness, quality of life, and mood of older people – a randomized and controlled study. Eur Geriatr Med 2022; 13: 1177–1185.

68.

Chaplin

Hewitt

Apps

, et al. Interactive web-based pulmonary rehabilitation programme: a randomised controlled feasibility trial. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e013682.

69.

Hansen

Bieler

Beyer

, et al. Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial. Thorax 2020; 75: 413–421.

70.

Lundgren

Langlo

KAR

Salvesen

, et al. Feasibility of telerehabilitation for heart failure patients inaccessible for outpatient rehabilitation. ESC Heart Fail 2023; 10: 2406–2417.

71.

Yerlikaya

, Öniz A, Özgören

. The effect of an interactive tele rehabilitation program on balance in older individuals. Neurol Sci Neurophysiol 2021; 38: 180–186.

72.

Villamar

Contreras

Kuntz

, et al. The reporting of blinding in physical medicine and rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45: 6–13.

73.

Reed

Huang

Graetz

, et al. Patient characteristics associated with choosing a telemedicine visit vs office visit with the same primary care clinicians. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e205873.

74.

Bini

Mahajan

. Clinical outcomes of remote asynchronous telerehabilitation are equivalent to traditional therapy following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized control study. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 239–247.

75.

Rush

Howlett

Munro

, et al. Videoconference compared to telephone in healthcare delivery: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2018; 118: 44–53..

76.

Prvu Bettger

Resnik

. Telerehabilitation in the age of COVID-19: an opportunity for learning health system research. Phys Ther 2020; 100: 1913–1916..

77.

NZa. NZa brengt extra verruiming aan voor zorg op afstand, https://www.nza.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/03/17/nza-brengt-extra-verruiming-aan-voor-zorg-op-afstand (2020, accessed 17-03-2020).

78.

VWS. Noodregeling maakt direct meer digitale zorg thuis mogelijk, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/03/24/noodregeling-maakt-direct-meer-digitale-zorg-thuis-mogelijk (2020, accessed 24-03-2020).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB