Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Driven by the rising demand for telerehabilitation (TR) services and digital transformations in the healthcare management of people with facial palsy (FP), studies on TR programs in this specific population are steadily increasing. Our scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on TR for people with FP by addressing three subquestions regarding the types of studies conducted, the technologies used, and the potential existing technologies that could be adapted for TR in this context.

Study Design and Methods

We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Between January and February 2024, two authors performed a literature search on Medline, Cochrane, PEDro, and Scopus databases, while two additional authors conducted a gray literature search using the “Grey Matters” tool, repositories, and Google.

Results

A total of 10,804 reports were initially considered in this scoping review. After the screening process, we included and analyzed 39 results. We found 18 studies with 11 different study designs or types related to TR in FP, 14 technologies projected or already used for TR purposes with a variety of delivery methods or rehabilitative treatments, and 18 additional digital instruments suitable for different TR stages.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate a growing interest in and development of TR instruments, aligning with the broader expansion of telemedicine services across healthcare. We have identified a diverse range of delivery methods, rehabilitative treatments, and digital tools utilized in TR for FP. Additionally, our comprehensive overview provides healthcare providers with practical insights to improve their approach to managing patients with FP in TR contexts.

Keywords

Telemedicine telerehabilitation Bell's palsy eHealth telehealth digital health

Introduction

The facial nerve is a complex structure composed of efferent (motor and autonomic) and afferent (sensory) nerve fibers.¹ It plays a crucial role in controlling various aspects of our individuality, particularly the facial expressions unique to each person.² Peripheral facial paralysis is a condition characterized by the loss of functionality of the facial nerve due to various causes.^3,4 Although considered a benign condition⁵ with spontaneous and complete recovery within 3 months for 80% to 85% of patients,⁶ it can still present with either transient or persistent motor dysfunction, which is associated with functional,⁷ psychological,^8,9 and social impairments,⁹ with an impact on quality of life regardless of the severity of the condition.¹⁰ Different rehabilitative interventions have been proposed for patients suffering from facial palsy (FP),^11–13 with effective results in reducing nonrecovery and improving functional outcomes, even though studies of high quality are lacking.¹⁴ Telerehabilitation (TR) is a branch of telemedicine, and refers to the delivery of rehabilitation services (including evaluation, assessment, monitoring, prevention, intervention, supervision, education, consultation, and coaching) through different technologies.¹⁵ Following the COVID-19 pandemic, a multitude of TR studies have surfaced among various rehabilitation domains.^16,17 These studies frequently demonstrate outcomes similar to traditional in-person therapy,^18,19 accompanied by elevated levels of satisfaction.²⁰ However, there is a consensus that studies must enhance methodological rigor.²¹ The digital transformation in healthcare has significantly contributed to the advancement of managing patients with facial impairments.^22–24. It is acknowledged that digital technologies are employed in facial recognition^25,26; however, a substantial implementation has been achieved even in their clinical application.^27,28 These technologies have facilitated a more precise clinical assessment of facial lesions²⁹ and expressions,³⁰ as well as early diagnosis of facial nerve paralysis through contralateral comparison.³¹ In the field of interventional procedures, they support the preparation of advanced techniques in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery.^32,33 Moreover, their support extends to preventive measures for monitoring iatrogenic lesions,^34,35 and offering potential customized contributions for developing functional devices tailored to specific needs.³⁶ Machine learning algorithms have shown some potential utility in predicting the likelihood of synkinesis development subsequent to Bell's palsy.³⁷ In accordance with the widespread adoption of TR services in a variety of conditions,¹⁸ a recent narrative review²² has highlighted how telemedicine could represent an opportunity in plastic surgery and treatment of FP, even though this field lacks high-quality studies. For instance, Khan et al.,³⁸ in a systematic review aimed at supporting the use of facial rehabilitation to enable TR services for this population, did not find any trial conducted in TR. Moreover, to our knowledge, there are no other scoping reviews, systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), or any RCTs conducted in the area of TR in peripheral FP. Despite this, several articles on the topic exist, employing various methodological designs. Therefore, this scoping review aims to summarize the information about the actual use and potential of TR in peripheral FP, in order to promote further studies regarding feasibility, acceptability, and/or efficacy of TR programs in this population. Hence, the main question is: What is the current state of knowledge of TR in people with FP? To address this, the authors will explore three subquestions: first, what types of studies have been conducted to date about TR in individuals with FP? Second, what technologies (including software, apps, websites, and instruments) have been projected or already used for TR services in patients with FP? Lastly, which existing technologies, developed or used for FP but not specifically designed for TR, could potentially be adapted for use in this context?

Methods

Protocol and registration

The protocol for this scoping review was developed following the “Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis”³⁹ and relevant best practices⁴⁰ and was registered on the “Centre for Open Science Framework.”⁴¹ This study was conducted in accordance with the “JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis”³⁹ and its updates.⁴² We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist to guide the reporting.⁴³

Eligibility criteria

Population

We included studies or contents focused on adult patients (18 years and older) with peripheral facial nerve palsy, including Bell's palsy. The inclusion criteria encompassed all degrees of palsy severity and any underlying etiology. Studies investigating patients under 18 years old of age or those with central facial nerve palsy were excluded from this study.

Concept

All relevant information about PCC inclusion criteria is reported in the protocol Table 1.⁴¹ To answer the first and second subquestions we focused on TR services provided to people with FP. For a more comprehensive description about what is meant by TR services and its applications, please refer to the study protocol.⁴¹ In this review, both synchronous and asynchronous TR services delivered through various modalities (videoconferencing, tele-support, use of platforms, websites, applications) were included.¹⁵ Briefly, synchronous TR involves real-time interaction between the patient and clinician, while asynchronous TR involves nonsimultaneous (“store and forward”) exchange of information, such as clinical data, question, digital media, etc. Both modalities require the use of information and communication technologies. Studies that reported rehabilitation treatments carried autonomously and remotely by patients, even via technologies (i.e. digital platform, websites, etc.), but without providing any clinical data to the therapist through information and communication technologies, were excluded. However, whenever such technologies appeared to be suitable for a TR service, they were included if they met our inclusion criteria for the third sub-question.⁴¹ To describe this potential TR technology, we included the first study in which it has been used or tested on a FP population. Technologies that presented barriers to accessibility or usability for clinicians or patients were excluded. This encompassed technologies that were not user-friendly (defined as “easy to operate or understand, without the need for special training”),⁴⁴ required specialized skills or additional equipment, or were not yet available in a fully functional state.

Context

For the first two sub-questions, we restricted our research to a rehabilitative context (physical therapy, speech therapy, etc.), without any geographical or setting limitations. For the third sub-question, we considered a more comprehensive clinical context, excluding technologies that focus on facial features for other purposes (e.g. facial recognition systems for security purposes).

Types of evidence sources

We included every type of publication (primary and secondary research, quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies, gray literature, protocols, letters to the editor, and guidelines) that was available as full-text and focused on digital technologies directly or potentially related to TR for FP. We also included content from websites whenever technologies directly or potentially related to TR for FP were found. We excluded website content in case TR or digital solution for the FP population were addressed in a generic way, without focusing on a specific instrument. Studies or website contents in English and Italian were considered.

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed by one author (DG) in collaboration with the entire research team, based on a three-step approach.³⁹ The literature search was carried out up to 1 February 2024, including the articles published up to the end of January, in the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Scopus. Furthermore, additional content on relevant or potential technologies for FP TR was identified through key words via Google, and a supplemental search of the gray literature was conducted following the “Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health related grey literature”⁴³ in every source in accordance with PCC. Clinical trials registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), or Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), plus the sources listed on “Grey Matters” tool, were analyzed. The web and gray literature searches were carried out up to 18 February 2024. When needed, authors of primary sources or web contents were contacted for further information. The search strategies for each data source can be found in “A” Supplemental material—Tables A1 and A2.

Study selection

During the literature search process, two independent reviewers (DG and SV) screened titles and abstracts for relevance and eligibility for the review. Articles selected for full-text review were read and assessed by the same two independent researchers (DG and SV). Any disagreement that arose at each stage of the study selection was resolved through a group discussion (DG, SV, GO, MC, IG, and GC). The web and gray literature searches were conducted by two independent reviewers (GO and GC) and any divergences were resolved through consultation with a third author (DG).

Data charting process

A data-charting table was jointly developed by five reviewers (DG, SF, MZ, BC, and PK) in accordance with our review questions and the PCC framework,⁴⁵ to extract all relevant variables (see Table 1 in the protocol section⁴¹). Three authors (GO, MC, and IG) conducted data extraction and subsequently, a fourth author (DG) independently reviewed charted data. When needed, disagreements were resolved by group discussion (DG, GO, MC, IG, GC, and PK).

Data items

We selected specific variables to address each of the three subquestions in addition to basic report characteristics (author, year, and country). For the first subquestion, we collected information on the “source” and “study design.” The “population” variable indicates which FP etiology the study or technology was tested or designed for. The “technology” variable specifies the type or name of the digital instrument, if reported. The “description” provides further details about the study or technology, while “availability” covers the terms of access to the technology, if mentioned. To answer the second subquestion, we used our TR concept to define “type of TR,” indicating whether the TR technology is useful synchronously or asynchronously.¹⁵ “TR usage” addresses the clinical context (e.g. physical therapy, speech therapy, and psychotherapy), and “stage of TR” focuses on the different steps of the rehabilitation process (assessment, intervention, and monitoring) in which the TR technology could be implemented.⁴⁶ For the third subquestion, “field of application” refers to the clinical context in which the instrument was originally tested, used, or designed for, distinct from TR usage. “Suitable TR application” refers to the potential type and usage of the technology for TR purposes.

Results

Selection of results

The overall number of sources identified was 10,804. The literature search yielded a total of 6753 articles, including 4857 from MEDLINE (PubMed), 177 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, 1414 from Scopus and 292 from PEDro. Additionally, 18 records were identified through cross-reference sources. The gray literature search resulted in 4033 items, including 1116 from Google, 5 from ClinicalTrials.gov, 100 from ICTRP, 21 from ANZCTR, and 2791 using “Grey Matters” list. The initial screening process eliminated 887 duplicates and 122 non-English results, leaving 5744 articles for review. Title and abstract screening further reduced this to 97 full-text articles for eligibility assessment, with 2 unavailable for retrieval. From the remaining articles, 73 were excluded due to various reasons: 21 did not pertain to TR on people with FP or technologies suitable for this purpose; 13 were about technologies that were not user-friendly in their application; 29 were about technologies that needed extra equipment or user skills to be used; 1 focused on a different population; 7 cited suitable technologies already included; 1 was about technologies not already available; 1 needed clinician based calculation of facial data (not automatically). The remaining 22 studies were considered eligible for this review. Of the 18 studies obtained through citation searching, 2 were not retrieved, 5 were about technologies that needed extra equipment or user skills, 3 were about technologies that were not user-friendly and 1 cited an already included technology, leaving 7 remaining studies considered eligible. The screening stage of the gray literature search resulted in 20 reports. Of these, 7 were removed because they were not focused on TR or suitable technologies; 2 were about a different population; 1 was about a technology that was not available. The overall screening stage resulted in 39 contents eligible for this review. The selection process is detailed in the PRISMA flowchart,⁴³ presented in Figure 1. The list of excluded full-text citations with reasons for exclusion, as well as studies that were not retrieved, can be found in “B” Supplemental material—Tables B1, B2, and B3.

Figure 1.

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Report characteristics

Of the 39 results included, 33 are research papers, 1 is a conference abstract, and 5 are website contents. Regarding research papers, the study countries of origin, based on the corresponding authors’ affiliations, span 16 different countries. Authors from Italy produced the highest number of publications (n = 6; 33.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 5; 27.7%), and the United Kingdom and Canada (n = 4; 22.2%). Other countries with fewer than three studies include: Germany, Australia, China, Spain, Japan, Austria, Brazil, United Arab Emirate, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey, and France. The 33 research papers were published between 2010 and 2023. The origins of protocol authors are Canada, France, and Turkey, with publications between 2016 and 2023. The conference abstract is from the United Kingdom. The countries of origin for the five website contents are the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and Slovakia.

Synthesis of results

From the initial pool of 10,804 resources identified during the screening process, a total of 39 met the inclusion criteria for our review. In summary, 18 studies from 16 countries have been published about TR in FP population since 2010. The selected reports involved 18 different types of technologies projected or already used for TR services for this population. Additionally, we identified 17 more technologies suitable for a TR purpose, according to our third subquestion.

Study designs in TR research on FP

Of the 39 reports included, 18 studies (46.1%) focused on TR services in FP population. These include 11 research papers, 4 RCT protocols, 2 graduation theses, and 1 letter to the editor. The main findings regarding study designs, types of technologies and suitable TR application are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of key findings.

Subquestion	Parameter	Results	n
1–2	Number of contents	Studies ^47–64	18
		Conference abstract ⁶⁵	1
		Web contents ^66,67	2
	Study design or type	RCT protocol ^50,61,63,64	4
		Surveys ^47,58	2
		Case report ^49,52	2
		Graduation thesis ^48,62	2
		Narrative description of novel technology ^57,60	2
		Narrative review ⁵¹	1
		Pilot study ⁵⁵	1
		Within subject trial ⁵⁴	1
		Case series ⁵⁶	1
		Letter to editor ⁵³	1
		Cross sectional ⁵⁹	1
	Type of technology	FP Specific TR platforms ^{50,54,57,60,61,64,65,67}	6
		Generic TR platforms ^{50,55,62,63,66}	4
		Videocall or messaging Apps ^48,49,52,56	4
		Neural Networks ^55,57	2
		Hardware rehabilitation devices ^57,60	2
	TR type	Synchronous ^48,52,62	3
		Asynchronous ^{49,50,54,55,57,60,61,63,64}	9
		Both ⁵⁶	1
	TR usage	Physiotherapy ^{48–50,52,56,57,62,63,65}	9
		Speech therapy ^50,54,55	3
		Occupational therapy ⁵⁰	1
		Psychological therapy ⁴⁹	1
	TR stage	Assessment ^48,55,59	3
		Intervention ^{48–50,52,54,56,57,60–64}	12
		Monitoring ^{49,50,54–57,60,61,64}	9
3	Number of contents	Studies ^68–82	15
	Number of contents	Web contents ^83–85	3
	Field of application of suitable technologies	Rehabilitation ^{68–70,74–78,82}	9
		Surgery ^{69,74,75,79–81}	6
		Clinical ^71,80	2
		Research ⁸¹	1
		mHealth ^83–85	3
	Suitable TR application	Synchronous ^{68,70,74,76–78,83–85}	10
		Asynchronous ^{69,71–73,75,79–82}	8
		Assessment and monitoring ^{69,71–75,79–82}	10
		Intervention ^{68,70,76–78,82–85}	9
		Monitoring and intervention ⁷⁶	1

FP: facial palsy; RCT: randomized controlled trial; TR: telerehabilitation.

Identified technologies for TR services in FP

Regarding the technologies to provide or support TR services for the FP population, we included 17 reports (43.5%) of which 14 are research papers, 1 is a conference abstract, and 2 are web contents. The synoptic table containing the extracted extended information is available in Supplemental C, Table C1, where the contents are initially organized by subquestion number and subsequently in chronological order. To summarize the key findings, we grouped these technologies into five different categories:

– “FP Specific TR platforms” are digital platforms specially created for FP rehabilitation. They are accessible via smartphone or PC, allowing clinicians to monitor and guide patients’ exercise programs and progress. The specific platforms identified include MEPP 2.0,^50,61 MEPP 1.0,^54,61 FRAME,^60,65 FaceRehab^®,⁶⁷ and other two additional specific platforms^57,64;

– “Generic TR platforms” are technologies designed for more comprehensive TR services. These include the Phystrack^® app,^50,66 Homely Care,⁵⁵ Pagine Mediche^®,⁶² and an unspecified online platform⁶³;

– “Videocall or messaging apps” are existing and widely used applications that were not originally developed for TR purposes. They allow therapists and patients to schedule synchronous video TR sessions or exchange information about the rehabilitation process asynchronously. The apps used include Zoom^®,⁴⁸ Skype^®,⁵² WhatsApp^®,^48,49 and an unspecified messaging app⁵⁶;

– “Neural networks” were trained and used to identify specific facial points through patients’ video recordings or camera layouts,^55,57 which are useful for analysis purposes;

– “Hardware rehabilitation devices” were specifically designed to provide FP rehabilitation treatments. These devices include a “flexible massaging headgear”⁵⁷ and “EMG biofeedback goggles”,⁶⁰ both of which are supported by one of the previously mentioned specific TR platforms.

The TR typology of the included studies was as follows: synchronous in 3 studies,^48,52,62 asynchronous in 9 studies,^{49,50,54,55,57,60,61,63,64} and both synchronous and asynchronous in 1 study.⁵⁶ Regarding the two web content technologies, one utilized an asynchronous modality,⁶⁷ while the other employed both synchronous and asynchronous approaches.⁶⁶ In the included studies, the TR was primarily utilized by physiotherapists.^{48–50,52,56,57,62,63,65} One study reported that patients were provided with additional psychological support.⁴⁹ In addition to physiotherapists, one study included both speech and occupational therapists,⁵⁰ two studies involved only speech therapists,^54,55 and two studies did not specify which type of rehabilitation specialists supervised the treatments.^61,64

Suitable technologies for TR aim in FP

According to our inclusion criteria, the literature and web search conducted for the third subquestion identified 18 items (46.1%), comprising 15 studies, and 3 web contents. As mentioned earlier, the synoptic table containing the extracted extended information is available in Supplemental C, Table C1. We grouped the included technologies based on their suitability for different TR stages:

– “Intervention technologies” were described in five articles and three web contents. Of the eight digital technologies, “Face mirroring system,”⁶⁸ “Specular Face Software,”⁷⁰ “IDIBELL software^®,”⁷⁶ “Webcam Toy^®,”⁷⁷ and “Face2Face Facial Palsy^®⁸³” used mirroring software to duplicate the healthy side of the face for mirror therapy. “FaraPy”⁷⁸ and “Facial Paralysis^®”⁸⁵ used real-time feedback on exercise performance, while “Face It! Bell's palsy-Training^®”⁸⁴ provided exercises and educational content.

– “Assessment and monitoring technologies” for defining the grade of FP were described in 10 studies. Five instruments use facial automatic landmarks: the two version of “Emotrics”^73,80 compute a set of relevant facial measurements in FP, while “Auto-eFace,”⁶⁹ “SBface application,”⁷² and “real-time facial asymmetry analysis”⁷⁴ assign scores based on ratios of the facial marks. Three technologies use specific algorithms on photos or videos to evaluate facial movements (“TrueDepth camera” based-app⁷¹) or emotions (“FaceReader^®”⁷⁵ and “SmileCheck”⁷⁹). Additionally, one program produces a “Facogram”⁸¹ and a “Computer Application”⁸² works by analyzing pixel changes in photos.

Notably, some of the cited instruments could be used for both intervention and assessment or monitoring stages.^74,82

Discussion

Summary of evidence

This scoping review aimed to synthesize existing knowledge about TR in FP population. The review included studies that directly addressed TR services for patients with FP, as well as those that indirectly discussed related symptoms. Additionally, we examined technologies with potential applications in TR for this specific population, broadening the scope to include emerging tools and methods that could enhance remote care delivery for patients with FP. Among the 21 studies selected to address our first and second subquestions, only 9 (42.8%) explicitly mentioned TR.^{47–49,52,53,56,58,62,63} This is attributable to the heterogeneity of digital health-related terms and the overlapping concepts within their definitions.⁸⁶ However, it's worth noting that all the technologies described in the included studies aligned with our definition and criteria for TR services, even if not explicitly labeled as such. The selected reports involved different types of technologies, including specific and generic TR platforms, as well as messaging apps, which is consistent with the variety found in studies for other populations.^87,88 Olsen et al.⁸⁹ found that rehabilitation technology factors, such as patient engagement features (e.g. monitoring, reminders, and rewards) or personalization tailored to patient needs, can positively influence their adoption and sustained use. These features are usually embedded in TR platforms, given that their development, as a best practice, requires the involvement and iterative assessments of potential users.⁹⁰ Despite lacking these elements, our findings confirm the vast utilization of messaging or video-calling apps, such as WhatsApp^®,^91–93 Zoom^®,^94,95 or Skype^®,^96,97 in telemedicine.

Through our literature search, we identified at least 15 subjects with FP who received a TR treatment,^{16,47–49,56,62} as well as 1 survey that revealed therapists’ perspectives on TR in FP. Furthermore, we found several specific technologies designed for providing TR services.^{50,54,57,60,61,65,67} Hence, this research revealed a gap: while there is a growth in TR services and technologies for FP, we found no RCTs confirming their efficacy,⁹⁸ as previously noted by some authors.⁵³ To address this issue, our search of clinical trial repositories uncovered two ongoing RCTs^50,63 and one completed RCT with no study results available yet.⁶⁴ Studies on user experience for specific platforms are either available⁵⁴ or currently underway.⁶¹ The two included surveys have provided some qualitative input on the perception of TR instruments. Szczepura et al.⁵⁸ found a positive attitude toward digital technology in managing FP among both clinicians (favorable for TR) and patients, consistent with results from studies in a broader context^99–101. Despite the generally positive reception, some concerns have been noted in the literature, especially due to the hands-off nature of TR.¹⁰² In a related study, Buckingham et al. observed favorable views towards TR among UK rehabilitation practitioners.⁴⁷ However, the researchers were unable to provide the raw survey data specifically pertaining to FP tele-treatment as reported by one participant. In their update of the evidence for facial exercise therapy, including for a TR purpose, Khan et al.³⁸ reported considerable heterogeneity among the interventions included. To a lesser extent, our findings reflect similar considerations among the rehabilitation interventions. Some authors performed the MEPP protocol, which consists of counseling, motor imagery, and facial retraining through modified visual biofeedback and neuromuscular retraining components.^50,54,61 Others provided cognitive and sensory tasks mixed with facial expression exercises but with different time sequences.^48,49,62 Additional proposals involved active and specific facial muscle exercises, either alone⁵² or combined with education, auto-massage, and other app functions.⁶⁷ Facial muscle massages using a peripheral device,⁵⁷ auto-stretch and facial massage with smartphone application guidance,^60,65 neuromuscular retraining alone⁵² or with educational content,⁸⁴ virtual smile exercises,⁶⁴ and mime therapy⁶⁶ were also reported. As mentioned above, some included instruments are suitable for providing mirror therapy^{68,70,76,77,83} or obtaining visual feedback during the exercises.^78,85 Some rehabilitation programs were not reported in detail.^56,85 Several identified instruments have potential for the assessment stage. However, only a few have been validated, such as “Emotrics”¹⁰³ and “SmileCheck,”⁷⁹ with further details about this topic available in other sources.¹⁰⁴ We assumed that suitable technologies for assessing the degree of FP through photo^69,72,73,80 or video analysis^{71,74,75,79,81} could align with asynchronous stages of TR, which allows for an exchange of data (such as digital media or clinical statistics) between patient and clinician. Technologies useful for performing exercises, such as mirror therapy,^68,70,76,77 visual feedback,^74,78 or app-based approaches,^83–85 were considered appropriate for supporting synchronous sessions. Tan et al.⁵⁹ provided further details about the potential for conducting asynchronous FP assessment using House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Sunnybrook systems through recorded video, finding good reliability, although it was poor in measuring synkinesis.

Driven by the global digital transformation of healthcare systems,¹⁰⁵ the diverse technologies developed to address FP have the potential to significantly extend digital health delivery models¹⁰⁶ for this population. Hence, new remote care pathways are emerging even for the rehabilitation of FP, confirming a trend observed for other conditions^20,107,108 and a lasting interest in this field.^17,109

Strengths and limitations

Our research methodology incorporated two key strengths: strict adherence to the “JBI group” guidelines for conducting and documenting our study, and a thorough literature review encompassing various electronic databases and gray literature sources. However, there are limitations. Firstly, due to the variety of nomenclature in the digital health field (eHealth, mHealth, telehealth, etc.), we included some studies based on our criteria even when TR purpose was not explicitly declared in the report. For the same reason, there is a risk that some relevant studies were not detected by our search strings, despite our efforts to make them adequately sensitive. Regarding the third subquestion, our research group initially selected specific characteristics (user-friendliness, no extra equipment or skills required, and immediate availability) for suitable TR technologies at the protocol stage. This was done to enhance generalizability and applicability in broader research or clinical contexts. However, excluding studies without these features may have precluded the inclusion of other potentially relevant instruments in the TR field. In two specific cases, we decided to include studies about a beta version⁷² and a prototype⁷¹ of assessment technologies, despite our inclusion criteria of immediate availability. This decision was made because both instruments were in an advanced stage of development and had already been tested for reliability. Additionally, we included some assessment instruments^69,73,75 that work with photos taken in a laboratory context using specific digital cameras, assuming that these digital media could likely be replicated using accessible instruments (e.g. smartphone cameras) in a home setting. However, this assumption should be confirmed in specific studies. It is important to note that every identified suitable technology should be tested in proper research consistent with the relative clinical question before their implementation in a clinical TR context. Our opinions on the TR stage of suitable technologies were based on our experience and knowledge of the TR field, but this does not preclude potential and different application in further works. Finally, the absence of critical appraisal of the included reports did not allow us to provide further information about the quality of the studies and, consequently, the described technologies.

Deviations from the protocol

We performed the gray literature search until 18 February 2024 and not in January 2024 as declared in our protocol. This is due the fact the research toward “Grey Matters” and Google resulted in more reports than expected, requiring additional time for the screening stage. Similarly, due to the larger volume of included resources compared to our expectations, three authors extracted data for the Supplemental C, Table C1 instead of the authors stated in our protocol.

Future implications

In our protocol,⁴¹ we assumed that our research could reveal the need for RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of TR in people with FP, as well as further studies on the feasibility and acceptability of TR platforms for this population. Our findings confirmed these hypotheses, showing the current state of TR services and instruments, both in the literature and in the market. A Delphi survey¹¹⁰ on research priorities in FP management that involved patients, researchers, clinicians, and carers did not highlight any TR needs to be addressed. However, this research dates back to 2018, before the COVID-19 pandemic, after which an increased interest in this topic was reported.¹⁷ Despite this, no other emerging needs in the digital management of people with FP were raised in recent studies,^111,112 except in Szczepura et al.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, researchers can take advantage of our results to address the gap between actual usage and research. They can establish which TR programs, instruments, delivery methods, dosage, and types of treatments could be effective or feasible through further studies, such as clinical trials or feasibility studies. Furthermore, they will have the chance to test additional instruments potentially useful for the TR context. Our work can support clinicians currently involved in TR services, providing some valuable insights regarding the remote management of this population using the described technologies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review provides a comprehensive understanding of TR programs for individuals with FP. Our findings reveal a growing interest in and development of TR instruments, aligning with the broader expansion of telemedicine services across healthcare. We have identified a diverse range of delivery methods, rehabilitative treatments, and digital tools utilized in TR for FP. These findings present opportunities for researchers to conduct in-depth studies on the feasibility and efficacy of these approaches. Additionally, our summary provides clinicians with practical information to enhance their management of patients with FP in the TR setting.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 - Supplemental material for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review by Davide Grillo, Gianluca Ossola, Mattia Cecconi, Stefano Vania, Ignazio Geraci, Gianluca Calò, Sara Federico, Mirko Zitti, Błażej Cieślik, Silvia Zangarini and Pawel Kiper in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 - Supplemental material for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review by Davide Grillo, Gianluca Ossola, Mattia Cecconi, Stefano Vania, Ignazio Geraci, Gianluca Calò, Sara Federico, Mirko Zitti, Błażej Cieślik, Silvia Zangarini and Pawel Kiper in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 - Supplemental material for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jtt-10.1177_1357633X251342335 for Telerehabilitation for peripheral facial palsy: A scoping review by Davide Grillo, Gianluca Ossola, Mattia Cecconi, Stefano Vania, Ignazio Geraci, Gianluca Calò, Sara Federico, Mirko Zitti, Błażej Cieślik, Silvia Zangarini and Pawel Kiper in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the contacted researchers who took the time to provide us detailed explanations about their studies: Ms. Liesbet Desmet, Dr Sarah Martineau, Dr Sarah Buckingham, Dr Diego L. Guarin and Dr Fatih Ozden. We acknowledge the use of Gemini (Google AI) for writing assistance.

Author contributions

DG was involved in conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft, supervision, and project administration; GO, MC, SV, IG, and GC in conceptualization, methodology, and investigation; SF, MZ, BC, and SZ in conceptualization, methodology, and writing—review and editing; and PK in conceptualization, methodology, supervision, and project administration.

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

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente).

ORCID iDs

Davide Grillo

Ignazio Geraci

Mirko Zitti

Błażej Cieślik

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Data availability statement

The example text of a data statement as provided by the author. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

References

Toulgoat

Sarrazin

Benoudiba

, et al. Facial nerve: from anatomy to pathology. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94: 1033–1042.

Phillips

Bubash

. The facial nerve: Anatomy and common pathology. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2002; 23: 202–217.

Tieman

Chaiet

Luijmes

, et al. A closer look at the paralyzed face; a narrative review of the neurobiological basis for functional and aesthetic appreciation between patients with a left and a right peripheral facial palsy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73: 1434–1441.

Zhou

, et al. Bell’s palsy research hotspots and frontiers from 2002 to 2021: a bibliometric and visual analysis. Am J Transl Res 2023; 15: 4796–4804.

Valls-Solé

Montero

. Movement disorders in patients with peripheral facial palsy. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 1424–1435.

Finsterer

. Management of peripheral facial nerve palsy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265: 743–752.

Walker

Rakesh

. Mistry; Thomas Mazzoni. Facial Nerve Palsy 2022.

Pouwels

Sanches

Chaiet

, et al. Association between duration of peripheral facial palsy, severity, and age of the patient, and psychological distress. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74: 3048–3054.

Vargo

Ding

Sacco

, et al. The psychological and psychosocial effects of facial paralysis: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 83: 423–430.

10.

Bruins

Van Veen

Werker

PMN

, et al. Associations between clinician-graded facial function and patient-reported quality of life in adults with peripheral facial palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2021; 147: 717.

11.

Silva

Oliveira

Azevedo-Santos

, et al. Effect of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation in the treatment of dysfunctions in facial paralysis: a systematic literature review. Braz J Phys Ther 2022; 26: 100454.

12.

Pereira

Obara

Dias

, et al. Facial exercise therapy for facial palsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25: 649–658.

13.

Wamkpah

Jeanpierre

Lieu

JEC

, et al. Physical therapy for iatrogenic facial paralysis: a systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2020; 146: 1065.

14.

Nakano

Fujiwara

Tsujimoto

, et al. Physical therapy for peripheral facial palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2023; 51: 154–160.

15.

Shem

Irgens

Alexander

. Getting started: mechanisms of telerehabilitation. In: Telerehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2022, pp.5–20.

16.

De Sire

Andrenelli

Negrini

, et al. Systematic rapid living review on rehabilitation needs due to COVID-19: update as of April 30th, 2020. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020; 56: 354–360.

17.

Zheng

Hou

Liu

, et al. Knowledge structure and emerging trends of telerehabilitation in recent 20 years: a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 904855.

18.

Suso-Martí

. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapist practice: an umbrella and mapping review with meta–meta-analysis. Phys Ther 2021; 101: 75.

19.

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.

20.

Muñoz-Tomás

Burillo-Lafuente

Vicente-Parra

, et al. Telerehabilitation as a therapeutic exercise tool versus face-to-face physiotherapy: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20: 4358.

21.

León-Salas

González-Hernández

Infante-Ventura

, et al. Telemedicine for neurological diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol 2023; 30: 241–254.

22.

De Jongh

Sanches

Pouwels

, et al. E-health and telemedicine applications in plastic surgery and the treatment of facial palsy. Health Sci Rev 2022; 2: 100009.

23.

Pan

Clark

Chiang

, et al. The evolution of facial reanimation techniques. Am J Otolaryngol 2023; 44: 103822.

24.

Morisada

Tollefson

Shaye

, et al. The digital doctor: telemedicine in facial plastic surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 29: 271–276.

25.

Hidayat

Elviani

Situmorang

GBG

, et al. Face recognition for automatic border control: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2024; 12: 37288–37309.

26.

Adjabi

Ouahabi

Benzaoui

, et al. Past, present, and future of face recognition: a review. Electronics (Basel) 2020; 9: 1188.

27.

Boczar

Avila

Carter

, et al. Using facial recognition tools for health assessment. Plast Surg Nurs 2021; 41: 232–236.

28.

Aboujaoude

Light

Brown

JEH

, et al. Privacy, bias and the clinical use of facial recognition technology: a survey of genetics professionals. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2023; 193: e32035.

29.

Matthews

De Jong

Maal

, et al. Static and motion facial analysis for craniofacial assessment and diagnosing diseases. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci 2022; 5: 19–42.

30.

Rodríguez Martínez

Polezhaeva

Marcellin

, et al. Deepsmile: anomaly detection software for facial movement assessment. Diagnostics 2023; 13: 254.

31.

Liu

Wang

Luan

. Facial paralysis detection in infrared thermal images using asymmetry analysis of temperature and texture features. Diagnostics 2021; 11: 2309.

32.

Kayastha

Vakharia

. The evolving roles of computer-based technology and smartphone applications in facial plastic surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 27: 267–273.

33.

Chou

Annadata

Willson

, et al. Augmented and virtual reality applications in facial plastic surgery: a scoping review. Laryngoscope 2023; 134: 2568–2577.

34.

Stanković

Hoch

Stuck

, et al. Continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring of the facial nerve predicts postoperative facial palsy in parotid surgery: a prospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 281: 1483–1492.

35.

Stankovic

Wittlinger

Georgiew

, et al. Continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring (cIONM) in head and neck surgery—a review. HNO 2020; 68: 86–92.

36.

Saha

Soliman S

Bernstein J

, et al. A 3D printed embouchure-assistive device for musicians with facial palsy. BME Horiz 2023; 1: 0–0.

37.

Kishimoto-Urata

Urata

Nishijima

, et al. Predicting synkinesis caused by Bell’s palsy or Ramsay Hunt syndrome using machine learning-based logistic regression. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2023; 8: 1189–1195.

38.

Khan

Szczepura

Palmer

, et al. Physical therapy for facial nerve paralysis (Bell’s palsy): an updated and extended systematic review of the evidence for facial exercise therapy [with consumer summary]. Clin Rehabil 2022; 36: 1424–1449.

39.

Aromataris

Lockwood

Porritt

, et al. JBI manual for evidence synthesis . JBI, 2024 Epub ahead of print 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

40.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

McInerney

, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth 2022; 20: 953–968.

41.

Grillo

Kiper

. Telerehabilitation on peripheral facial palsy: a scoping review protocol. Open Science Framework 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QHVGF

42.

Peters

MDJ

Marnie

Tricco

, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18: 2119–2126.

43.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473.

44.

Lehoux

. Patients’ perspectives on high-tech home care: a qualitative inquiry into the user-friendliness of four technologies. BMC Health Serv Res 2004; 4: 28.

45.

Pollock

Peters

MDJ

Khalil

, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2023; 21: 520–532.

46.

World Health Organization. Rehabilitation competency framework. Geneva: World Health Organization, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/338782 (2020).

47.

Buckingham

Anil

Demain

, et al. Telerehabilitation for people with physical disabilities and movement impairment: a survey of United Kingdom practitioners. JMIRx Med 2022; 3: e30516.

48.

Biondo

. Telerehabilitation of the VII cranial nerve, study of a clinical case during the treatment in the third phase . 2022.

49.

Cavallaro

Portaro

Pintaudi

, et al. Remote cognitive therapeutic exercise in facial nerve palsy rehabilitation: pandemic tips and tricks. Innov Clin Neurosci 2023; 20: 10–12.

50.

Dagenais

Neville

Desmet

, et al. Measuring the potential effects of mirror therapy added to the gold standard facial neuromuscular retraining in patients with chronic peripheral facial palsy: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2023; 12: e47709.

51.

DeBord

Ding

Harrington

, et al. Clinical application of physical therapy in facial paralysis treatment: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 87: 217–223.

52.

De Sire

Marotta

Agostini

, et al.

A telerehabilitation approach to chronic facial paralysis in the COVID-19 pandemic scenario: what role for electromyography assessment?

J Pers Med 2022; 12: 497.

53.

Finsterer

Scorza

. Whether telerehabilitation is actually beneficial in iatrogenic facial palsy needs to be confirmed by prospective, multicenter, controlled studies. Innov Clin Neurosci 2023; 20: 8.

54.

Martineau

Rivest

Rahal

, et al. Development of an open-source and free facial rehabilitation website for severe Bell’s palsy: a within-subject study on user experience and patient’s compliance with the MEPP-website. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 8357–8366.

55.

Migliorelli

Berardini

Cela

, et al. A store-and-forward cloud-based telemonitoring system for automatic assessing dysarthria evolution in neurological diseases from video-recording analysis. Comput Biol Med 2023; 163: 107194.

56.

Pacheco

TBF

Bezerra

Silva

JPDS

, et al. The implementation of teleconsultations in a physiotherapy service during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: a case report. Int J Telerehabilitation 2021; 13: 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2021.6368

57.

Ridha

Shehieb

Yacoub

, et al. Smart prediction system for facial paralysis. In: 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICEEE), pp.321–327. Antalya, Turkey: IEEE.

58.

Szczepura

Holliday

Neville

, et al. Raising the digital profile of facial palsy: national surveys of patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of changing UK treatment pathways and views on the future role of digital technology. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e20406.

59.

Tan

Coulson

Keep

. Face-to-face versus video assessment of facial paralysis: implications for telemedicine. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21: e11109.

60.

Watts

Breedon

Nduka

, et al. Cloud computing mobile application for remote monitoring of Bell’s palsy. J Med Syst 2020; 44: 149.

61.

Martineau

Barbeau

Martineau

. Understanding the use of the MEPP 2.0 website in facial rehabilitation, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10885397 (2023, accessed 31 May 2024).

62.

Zangarini

. Telerehabilitation and treatment of patients with facial nerve palsy . Master Thesis, University of Padua, IT, 2021.

63.

Ozden

. Efficacy of telerehabilitation based exercises in patients with Bell’s palsy, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05251558?cond=NCT05251558&rank=1&a=4 (2022, accessed 25 July 2024).

64.

Lamas

. Virtual rehabilitation program in peripheral facial paralysis (RVPF), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02892864?cond=NCT02892864%20&rank=1&a=5 (2016, accessed 24 July 2024).

65.

Szczepura

Khan

Holliday

, et al.

PP26 facial palsy therapy: can novel ‘smart spectacles’ help people smile?

Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2018; 34: 76–76.

66.

Arteveldehogeschool. Mime therapy via an online practice platform, https://www.arteveldehogeschool.be/en/research/projects/mime-therapy-online-practice-platform (2024, accessed 25 July 2024).

67.

FaceRehab. FaceRehab for clinics, https://facerehab.com/for-clinics/ (2022, accessed 25 July 2024).

68.

Ding

, et al. Computer vision technology-based face mirroring system providing mirror therapy for Bell’s palsy patients. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 42: 833–840.

69.

Miller

Hadlock

Fortier

, et al. The auto-eFACE: machine learning–enhanced program yields automated facial palsy assessment tool. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147: 467–474.

70.

Gil-Martínez

Lerma-Lara

Hernando-Jorge

, et al. Influence of mirror therapy (specular face software) on electromyographic behavior of the facial muscles for facial palsy. Brain Sci 2021; 11: 930.

71.

Taeger

Bischoff

Hagen

, et al. Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app-based grading of facial movement disorders: development and feasibility study. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2021; 9: e19346.

72.

Jirawatnotai

Jomkoh

Voravitvet

, et al. Computerized Sunnybrook facial grading scale (SBface) application for facial paralysis evaluation. Arch Plast Surg 2021; 48: 269–277.

73.

Guarin

Yunusova

Taati

, et al. Toward an automatic system for computer-aided assessment in facial palsy. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med 2020; 22: 42–49.

74.

Hidaka

Kurita

Ogawa

, et al. Application of artificial intelligence for real-time facial asymmetry analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146: 243e–245e.

75.

Kollar

Schneider

Horner

, et al. Artificial intelligence-driven video analysis for novel outcome measures after smile reanimation surgery. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med 2022; 24: 117–123.

76.

Paolucci

Cardarola

Colonnelli

, et al. Give me a kiss! An integrative rehabilitative training program with motor imagery and mirror therapy for recovery of facial palsy. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020; 56: 58–67.

77.

Martineau

. A pilot study on the mirror effect PLUS protocol: a standardized and adapted facial rehabilitation for acute Bell’s palsy. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol 2020; 44: 57–72.

78.

Barrios Dell’Olio

Sra

. Farapy: an augmented reality feedback system for facial paralysis using action unit intensity estimation. In: The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Virtual Event USA, pp.1027–1038. ACM.

79.

Fuzi

Meller

Ch’ng

, et al. Voluntary and spontaneous smile quantification in facial palsy patients: validation of a novel mobile application. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med 2023; 25: 312–317.

80.

Guarin

Dusseldorp

Hadlock

, et al. A machine learning approach for automated facial measurements in facial palsy. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20: 335–337.

81.

O’Reilly

Soraghan

McGrenary

, et al. Objective method of assessing and presenting the house-Brackmann and regional grades of facial palsy by production of a facogram. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31: 486–491.

82.

Qazi

. Facial paralysis can be treated with computer application. A Knowledge-Based System. J Pharmaceut Negative Results 2023; 14: 3765–3771.

83.

face2face - Facial Exercises, https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/face2face-facial-exercises/id1624231693 (2022, accessed 25 July 2024).

84.

Ergonomhuset. Face it! Bell’s Palsy-Training®, https://bellspalsytraining.com/ (2013, accessed 26 July 2024).

85.

Facial Paralysis, https://facial-paralysis.en.aptoide.com/app (2020, accessed 26 July 2024).

86.

Burrell

Zrubka

Champion

, et al. How useful are digital health terms for outcomes research? An ISPOR special interest group report. Value Health 2022; 25: 1469–1479.

87.

Vieira

LMSMDA

De Andrade

Sato

TDO

. Telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal pain—an overview of systematic reviews. Digit Health 2023; 9: 205520762311642.

88.

Grillo

Zitti

Cieślik

, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in dizziness: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sensors 2024; 24: 3028.

89.

Olsen

Lim

XML

Alder

, et al. Factors influencing adoption and sustained use of rehabilitation technologies: a scoping review and qualitative analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2024; 20: 1–19.

90.

Luis Pérez Medina

Acosta-Vargas

Rybarczyk

. A systematic review of usability and accessibility in tele-rehabilitation systems. In: Rybarczyk

(ed.) Assistive and rehabilitation engineering. United Kingdom: IntechOpen, Epub ahead of print 4 December 2019, pp.1–19.

91.

Barayev

Shental

Yaari

, et al. Whatsapp tele-medicine—usage patterns and physicians views on the platform. Isr J Health Policy Res 2021; 10: 34.

92.

Giordano

Koch

Godoy-Santos

, et al. Whatsapp messenger as an adjunctive tool for telemedicine: an overview. Interact J Med Res 2017; 6: e11.

93.

Mars

Scott

. WhatsApp in clinical practice: a literature review. In: Studies in health technology and informatics. Netherlands: IOS Press, Epub ahead of print 2016, pp.82–90.

94.

Lowe

Shen

. Off the shelf: rapid deployment of an emergency department telemedicine platform using readily available consumer products. J Emerg Med 2020; 59: 726–729.

95.

Farringer

. A telehealth explosion: using lessons from the pandemic to shape the future of telehealth regulation. Tex AM Law Rev 2021; 9: 1–48.

96.

Armfield

Bradford

. The clinical use of skype—for which patients, with which problems and in which settings? A snapshot review of the literature. Int J Med Inf 2015; 84: 737–742.

97.

Drake

Ritchie

. The surgeon will skype you now: advancements in E-clinic. Ann Surg 2016; 263: 636–637.

98.

Hariton

Locascio

. Randomised controlled trials—the gold standard for effectiveness research: study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 125: 1716–1716.

99.

Tsekoura

Fousekis

Lampropoulou

, et al. Physiotherapists’ perceptions and willingness to use telerehabilitation in Greece: a cross-sectional study. Cureus 2022; 14: 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32317

100.

Milani

Demattè

Ferioli

, et al. Telerehabiltation in Italy during the COVID-19 lockdown: a feasibility and acceptability study. Int J Telerehabilitation 2021; 13: 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2021.6334

101.

Ouédraogo

Auger

L-P

Moreau

, et al. Acceptability of telerehabilitation: experiences and perceptions by individuals with stroke and caregivers in an early supported discharge program. Healthcare 2024; 12: 365.

102.

Fernandes

Oliveira

RFF

Barros

, et al. Physical therapists and public perceptions of telerehabilitation: an online open survey on acceptability, preferences, and needs. Braz J Phys Ther 2022; 26: 100464.

103.

Kim

Bae

, et al. Reliability and validity of emotrics in the assessment of facial palsy. J Pers Med 2023; 13: 1135.

104.

Fuzi

Meller

Ch’ng

, et al. The emerging role of artificial intelligence tools for outcome measurement in facial reanimation surgery: a review. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med 2023; 25: 556–561.

105.

Stoumpos

Kitsios

Talias

. Digital transformation in healthcare: technology acceptance and its applications. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20: 3407.

106.

Philpot

Dugani

Singla

, et al. Digital care horizon: a framework for extending health care through digital transformation. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health 2023; 1: 210–216.

107.

Suso-Marti

la Touche

Herranz-Gomez

, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapist practice: an umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis. Phys Ther Rehabil Med 2021 May; 101: pzab075.

108.

Amin

Ahmad

Amin

, et al. Rehabilitation professional and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. BioMed Res Int 2022; 2022: 7366063.

109.

Tack

Grodon

Shorthouse

, et al. “Physio anywhere”: digitally-enhanced outpatient care as a legacy of coronavirus 2020. Physiotherapy 2021; 110: A26–A28.

110.

Hamlet

Rumsey

Williamson

, et al. Consensus research priorities for facial palsy: a Delphi survey of patients, carers, clinicians and researchers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS 2018; 71: 1777–1784.

111.

Neville

Beurskens

Diels

, et al. Consensus among International facial therapy experts for the management of adults with unilateral facial palsy: a two-stage nominal group and Delphi study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med 2023; 26: 405–417.

112.

Pauna

Silva

VAR

Lavinsky

, et al. Task force of the Brazilian Society of Otology—evaluation and management of peripheral facial palsy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2023; 90: 101374.

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

0.70 MB

0.04 MB

0.07 MB