Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Context

Chronic Neurological Disorders (CNDs) are among the leading causes of disability worldwide, and their contribution to the overall need for rehabilitation is increasing. Therefore, the identification of new digital solutions to ensure early and continuous care is mandatory.

Objective

This protocol proposes to test the usability, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of Telerehabilitation (TR) protocols with digital and robotic tools in reducing the perceived level of disability in CNDs including Parkinson's Disease (PD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), and post-stroke patients.

Design, Setting, and Subjects

This single-blinded, multi-site, randomized, two-treatment arms controlled clinical trial will involve PD (N = 30), MS (N = 30), and post-stroke (N = 30). Each participant will be randomized (1:1) to the experimental group (20 sessions of motor telerehabilitation with digital and robotic tools) or the active control group (20 home-based motor rehabilitation sessions according to the usual care treatment). Primary and secondary outcome measures will be obtained at the baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1, 5 weeks after baseline), and at follow-up (T2, 2 months after treatment).

Main Outcome Measures

a multifaceted evaluation including quality of life, motor, and clinical/functional measures will be conducted at each time-point of assessment. The primary outcome measures will be the change in the perceived level of disability as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0.

Conclusion

The implementation of TR protocols will enable a more targeted and effective response to the growing need for rehabilitation linked to CNDs, ensuring accessibility to rehabilitation services from the initial stages of the disease.

Keywords

Telerehabilitation digital health robotics chronic neurological diseases Parkinson's disease multiple sclerosis stroke

Introduction

According to the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study, neurological disorders are one of the major causes of disability in the world, resulting in 276 million disability-adjusted life-years.¹ In particular, Parkinson's disease (PD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), and post-stroke are among the central chronic neurological disorder (CND) associated with the highest number of years of life lived with disability, resulting in limited daily activities, restrictions in social participation, and poor quality of life.²

Rehabilitation is relevant to the needs of people with these CNDs and consists of a multimodal, person-centred process with specific interventions targeting body structures, functions, activity/participation, and contextual factors to achieve optimal functioning.³ To obtain functional and healthy outcomes, early, intensive, and continuous interventions are essential. Rehabilitation should start as soon as possible after the diagnosis of a neurological disorder and must be ensured for a long time after discharge.^4,5 However, policymakers and healthcare professionals seem not equipped to deal with the large need for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation services and resources for people with CNDs are limited or lacking in many developing countries, especially in low-income and developing ones.⁶ Moreover, as currently provided, rehabilitation interventions are difficult to access for all those in need, especially in the initial stages of the disease.² Therefore, the identification of feasible and effective therapeutic solutions becomes essential to expand the offer of rehabilitation services to all those who can benefit from it, along the entire course of the disease.

The current disruptive digital and robotics technological progress represents a valuable resource to increase accessibility to rehabilitation. The use of health technologies and the provision of remote Telerehabilitation (TR) services through digital platforms represent the new frontier for integrated and long-term management of chronic neurological disability.^7,8 Previous studies in the field^9–18 investigated the feasibility and efficacy of innovative, multidimensional TR approaches. They involved new digital solutions to ensure early and continuous management of CNDs, including PD and MS, beyond the hospital walls. The principal goal was to provide patients, families, and clinicians with instruments that are clinically validated, safe, easily accessible, and usable. Moreover, robot-based treatments are developing in neurorehabilitation settings. Robot-assisted rehabilitation has proven to be effective in improving both motor¹⁹ and cognitive²⁰ functions in CNDs. The use of robotic tools allows providing for more intense and controlled training within a highly personalized therapeutic plan.²¹ Moreover, robotic rehabilitation tools can promote the best recovery of sensorimotor, behavioral, and motor functionalities according to the individual functional profile of each patient.^22–28 Robotic solutions are commonly adopted in clinics but also at the patient's home to assure the continuity of care for stroke patients. In fact, a further challenge the neurorehabilitation concerns the need to “rethink the patient's home as a place of care”.²⁹

In this framework, rehabilitation interventions delivered with digital and robotics solutions are ideal candidates, but just like the new drugs, these digital medical solutions will require a rigorous evidence-based approach.⁸ Starting from these premises, this project will aim to evaluate the usability, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of TR protocols with digital and robotic tools in reducing the perceived level of disability in persons with CNDs using a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design.

Materials and methods

The protocol of the study has been conceived as outlined in the “Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials” (SPIRIT) guidelines (Figure 1). The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, the principles of Good Clinical Practice, and in accordance with local legislation in participating countries.

Figure 1.

SPIRIT figure for the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments in a parallel arm study design. T0 = baseline (pre-intervention phase); T1 = post-treatment assessment; T2 = follow-up assessment (8 weeks after the end of the treatment). WHODAS 2.0: WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; MDS-UPDRS: Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale; FMA-UL: Fugl-Meyer Assessment – Upper Extremity; ARAT: Action Research Arm Test; BBT: Box and Block Test; 9-HPT: Nine Hole Peg Test; mDGI: modified Dynamic Gait Index; Mini-BESTest: Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test; ABC: Activities Balance Confidence scale; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; TMT: Trail Making Test; SDMT: Symbol Digit Modalities Test; BDI-PC: Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care; STAI-Y2: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory – Form Y2; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; SUS: System Usability Scale; TAM: Technology Acceptance Model. #Optional evaluation.

Trial design and setting

This study is designed as a single-blinded, randomized, two-treatment arms controlled clinical trial involving chronic outpatients from neurorehabilitation units of IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi (Milan and Rome, Italy). After the enrolment and baseline assessment, each participant will be randomized (with an allocation ratio of 1:1) to the experimental group (20 sessions of motor TR with digital and robotic tools) or the active control group (20 motor rehabilitation sessions performed at home according to the usual care treatment procedure). Randomization will be stratified according to CNDs. Primary and secondary outcome measures will be obtained at the baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1, 5 weeks after baseline), and at follow-up (T2, 8 weeks after the end of the treatment). The trial work plan is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The trial work plan.

Sample size

According to an a-priori sample size calculation (using the G*Power software,^30,31) 90 subjects (45 subjects per arm), comprehensive of up to 10% drop-off, is sufficient to detect a medium to large standardized effect size (0.695) when considering the independent comparison between two groups (two-sided unpaired t-test). The Effect size was obtained from our previous unpublished study that compared two groups of treatments in WHODAS 2.0³² total score (TR group mean = -2.91 ± 8.61; UC group mean = 3.31 ± 9.26) and was chosen as a benchmark as the studies are similar in terms of methods and materials. Power calculation was conducted considering a type-I error rate of 5% (α = 0.05) with a statistical power of 0.80.

Study population, recruitment, and randomization

According to the sample size calculation, this trial has a recruitment target of 90 CND individuals with the diagnosis of post-Stroke (N = 30), PD (N = 30), and MS (N = 30). Eligible patients who meet all inclusion criteria (see the paragraph below) will be randomized using a web-based allocation concealment through a computer-based algorithm created by an independent statistician. We will adopt a stratified randomization to prevent imbalance between treatment groups. The sample will be stratified according to the clinical condition (SM, PD, post-stroke) and randomly allocated (1:1) into either the experimental group or the active control group. The trial intervention will not be blinded for clinicians or patients due to its nature. Conversely, clinical endpoints and data collection from clinical/psychological questionnaires will be blinded to examiners/assessors. The statistician conducting the data analysis will be masked for the group allocation.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for all participants will be:

diagnosis of chronic post-stroke condition with ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke injury occurred 4–6 months before recruitment and with motor impairment of the upper limb > 2 to the Medical Research Council scale (MRC);

diagnosis of probable PD according to MDS criteria³³ in staging between 1.5 and 3 on the Hoehn & Yahr scale³⁴;

diagnosis of MS, RR-SP forms, according to the criteria of MC Donald 2010³⁵ with disability level at the Expanded Disability Status Scale EDSS³⁶ < 6 2.

age between 25 and 85 years;

preserved cognitive level at the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA test >17.36)³⁷;

agreement to participate with the signature of the informed consent form;

no rehabilitation program in place at the time of enrolment;

stable drug treatment (last 3 months) with L-Dopa or dopamine agonists (PD group) and/or cortisone (MS group).

The exclusion criteria for all participants will be:

presence of comorbidities that might prevent patients from undertaking a safe home program or determining clinical instability (i.e., severe orthopedic or severe cognitive deficits);

presence of major psychiatric complications or personality disorders;

presence of severe impairment of visual and/or acoustic perception;

relapse ongoing/at least 3 months since the last relapse (MS group);

presence of “frequent” freezing as recorded at the administration of Section II (daily life activity) of the UPDRS (score ≥ 3) (PD group);

falls resulting in injuries or more than 2 falls in the 6 months prior to recruitment (PD and MS groups).

Trial interventions

The Trial protocol provides for the random allocation of participants to two different types of rehabilitation treatment: Telerehabilitation treatment (TR) and Usual Care (UC), according to a single-blind, parallel arm design.

Tele-rehabilitation (TR) . The TR intervention for people with PD, MS, and people post-stroke will be focused on addressing impairments and functional limitations that affect activities and participation in everyday life. For descriptive purposes, the characteristics of the TR intervention are detailed according to the FITT indices (in terms of Frequency-Intensity-Time-Type of intervention)³⁸:

Frequency: the TR group will experience 5 weeks (4 sessions/week) of TR intervention provided according to a mixed model (3 asynchronous sessions + 1 synchronous, in-clinic session/week). Participants will freely choose when to perform each home TR-session according to their preferences and needs;

Intensity: each session will be customized according to the patient's functional abilities to ensure the progression of difficulty in rehabilitation sessions (system's feedback);

Time: each session will last about 50 min/day;

Type: according to the disease, patients will perform TR protocols with a digital system (TR Type A for MS and PD) or robotic tool (TR Type B for post-stroke).

TR Type A. Rehabilitation activities will be aimed at improving motor performance and balance using a task-oriented approach with Homing system technology (https://www.tecnobody.com/). The Task-oriented approach is based on well-established theories of motor learning assuming a problem-solving process focusing on tasks and activity limitation^39,40 aiming at ensuring motor practice and preserving the natural goal-directedness of movements in a functional environment.⁴¹ The task-oriented activities will be varied to maximize transfer in daily life⁴² and will be focused on improving the position and movements of the center of mass in a sitting station and/or standing in static and dynamic conditions using biofeedback techniques (see Table 1). The biofeedback signal will be based on the following components: mode, content, and timing.⁴³ The camera and the speaker's microphones of the Homing system will provide visual and auditory feedback on the execution of the exercises, both in terms of knowledge of performance (quality of the movement during the execution of a task) and knowledge of results (information on goal-achievement).⁴⁴ The progression of intervention will be based according to Gentile's taxonomy with static predictable tasks at the beginning and dynamic and unpredictable tasks at the end, sensory cues will be progressively changed as well. A cut-off of 70% of correct execution (defined for each exercise) will be used to switch from easy to challenging exercises.

Table 1.

Examples of task-oriented activities. CoM = Centre of Mass.

Task-oriented digital activities
Type [Description]	Digital data flow
Tandem [The subject stands on the floor maintaining feet in tandem]	Measure: CoM control in static and predictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL and AUDITORY
Standing on a foam [The subject is requested to maintain a standing position on a foam pillow for 30 s]	Measure: CoM control in static and unpredictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL and AUDITORY
Sit to stand [The subject is asked to perform a body transfer from sitting on a chair to a standing position]	Measure: CoM control in semi-dynamic and predictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL and AUDITORY
Step ups/step downs [The subject is asked to step-up and step-down alternating feet]	Measure: CoM control in dynamic and predictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL and AUDITORY
Move to reach [The subject is asked to reach virtual targets with forward, backward, and lateral steps]	Measure: CoM control in dynamic and unpredictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL
Move to reach and dodge [The subject is asked to reach positive stimuli with forward, backward, and lateral steps while avoiding negative stimuli]	Measure: CoM control in dynamic and unpredictable conditions Feedback: VISUAL

TR Type B. Stroke patients will perform a home-based upper limb rehabilitation with the rehabilitation robot iCONE (Heaxel srl, Milan, Italy). Icone is a planar robot that enables the administration of upper limb neurorehabilitation protocols based on the intensive repetition of exercises defined by the clinical operator. The device integrates a computer with a multi-touch screen and dedicated management software for the provision of fully customizable, interactive exergames requiring the coordination of both shoulder and elbow to perform reaching tasks. During the exercise, the patient holds the ergonomic handle and moves it to reach some targets displayed on the screen, receiving real-time visual feedback about their position. During the session, the robotic system acquires both kinematic and dynamic data and uses the assessed motor performance to optimize the interaction with the patient. Moreover, periodical reports are generated for both patients and the clinical staff, informing about performance with graphical and numerical indicators. The TR architecture allows for remote management of patient records, therapy settings, and reporting, making the robotic system suitable also for the patient's home or other non-hospital environments.⁴⁵ The therapy can be set up remotely by a clinical operator, while direct supervision can be provided by a non-clinical operator, such as a patient's family member.

Usual Care (UC). The UC group (active control group) will perform conventional rehabilitation exercises at home, with the same Frequency (4 sessions/week; 5 weeks) and Time (50 min/session) of the TR intervention. According to the disease, patients will perform two different UC protocols: UC Type A for MS and PD and UC Type B for post-stroke.

UC Type A. The UC intervention for people with PD and MS will be focused on standard motor exercise training aimed at muscle mobilization and strengthening. Exercises will be provided through digital support (digital booklet) to perform training at home according to MS and PD guidelines.^46,5 Researchers will provide patients with brief training on how to perform exercises, specifying the frequency and time of rehabilitation sessions. Moreover, patients will be invited to register the rehabilitation activities performed in a paper diary indicating, for each session carried out, the date of execution, the number of exercises performed, the time spent, and notes about any difficulties encountered during the exercise training.

UC Type B. The UC intervention for post-stroke individuals will primarily focus on the repetitive practice of exercises aimed to mobilize and enhance motor control of upper limb functions, contributing to improved joint mobility, postural control, muscle recruitment, and fine hand mobility.^47,48 Each patient will receive a set of exercises and a prescribed number of repetitions based on his/her individual upper limb motor deficits. The exercises will be thoroughly explained to the patients, and a visual aid, such as a picture book, will be provided to enhance comprehension and facilitate independent practice. Among the four weekly sessions, one will include supervision by a clinician to explain the tasks and adapt the treatment plan according to the patient's progress.

Outcome measures

Participants will undergo an extensive evaluation at the baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and at the follow-up (T2) (see Figure 1 “Study Period”).

Primary outcome measure

The primary outcome will be the change in the perceived level of disability as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0³² evaluated at each time point of evaluation (T0, T1, and T2). The WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire assesses the functioning and disability level in six domains (cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation in community activities) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). During the interview, participants are asked questions about the degree of difficulty that they experience in doing different daily life activities in relation to any health condition. Responses are assigned on a Likert scale (“none” = 1; “mild” = 2; “moderate” = 3; “severe” = 4; “extreme” = 5). The summary scores for the WHODAS 2.0 will be obtained through 3 steps: 1) summing of item scores within each domain; 2) summing all six domain scores; 3) converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability and 100 = full disability).

Secondary outcome measures

Secondary outcomes will be the changes in cognitive and motor measures evaluated at each time point of evaluation (T0, T1, and T2).

Outcome measures common to all rehabilitation scenarios (PD, MS, and post-stroke)

The global cognitive functioning will be evaluated in PD, MS, and post-stroke groups through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.⁴⁹ The MoCA test is a screening battery that also includes subtests to assess frontal functions such as set-shifting, abstraction, and cognitive flexibility (MoCA total score range: 0–30). High scores are indicative of better general cognitive performance.

As specific measures of visuo-perceptual and attentional abilities, the Trail Making Test (TMT) part A and B⁵⁰ and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT)^51,52 will be administered.

The TMT is a neuropsychological test that involves visual scanning (TMT-A) and dual-task (TMT-B). In Part A, the participant must draw a line to connect consecutive numbers from 1 to 25. In Part B, the participant connects numbers and letters in an alternating progressive sequence, 1 to A, A to 2, 2 to B, and so on. The TMT is scored by how long it takes to complete each part of the test. Moreover, in order to measure executive functioning, the difference in time between TMT-B and TMT-A is calculated (TMT B-A). High execution times indicate poor performance.

The SDMT is a commonly used test to assess psychomotor speed. This paper-pencil measure involves a substitution task using a coding key with nine different abstract symbols, each paired with a numeral. Below the key, a series of these symbols is presented, and the participant is asked to write down the corresponding number for each symbol. The score consists of the number of correct substitutions within 90 s. Higher scores indicate better performance.

The Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI-PC⁵³) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory – Form Y (STAI-Y^54,55) will be used to detect changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms, respectively.

The BDI-PC is a 7-item questionnaire with each item rated on a 4-point scale (0–3). It is scored by summing ratings for each item (range 0–21). Higher scores indicate greater deflection of mood tone.

The STAI-Y is a commonly used measure of trait and state anxiety (20 items for each). All items are rated on a 4-point scale (from “Almost Never” to “Almost Always”). STAI – Y2 is scored by summing ratings for each item (State-Anxiety: range 0–80; Trait Anxiety: range 0–80). Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.

As a measure of gross manual dexterity, the Box and Block Test (BBT)⁵⁶ will be administered in all groups. The BBT is composed of a wooden box divided into two compartments, one of which contains 150 blocks. The BBT administration consists of asking the patient to move, one by one, the maximum number of blocks from one compartment to another within 60 s. The score is based on the number of blocks transferred from one compartment to the other in 60 s. Higher scores are indicative of better manual dexterity.

Outcome measures common to PD and MS groups

The finger dexterity will be measured by the Nine Hole Peg Test (9-HPT).⁵⁷ Participants are asked to take 9 pegs from a container, one by one, and place them into the nine holes on the board of the test, as quickly as possible, using only the hand evaluated. The scoring considers the number of seconds taken by patients to complete the test or the number of pegs placed in 50 or 100 s. High execution times indicate poor finger dexterity.

The modified Dynamic Gait Index (mDGI)⁵⁸ and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest)⁵⁹ will be used to evaluate changes in static and dynamic balance. In particular, the mDGI measures the capacity to adapt gait to complex tasks utilizing eight tasks and three facets of performance (gait pattern score [0 −3], level of assistance [0 −2], and time level score [0 −3]). The total task score (range 0–8) is calculated by summing the three performance facet scores for each task. Higher scores are indicative of better performance.

The Mini-BESTest aims to identify the disordered systems underlying the postural control responsible for poor functional balance. This tool is composed of 27 tasks (36 items in total) assessing biomechanical constraints, stability limits/verticality, anticipatory responses, postural responses, sensory orientation, and stability in gait. Each item is scored based on ordinal scale scoring from 0 to 3 where 3 = best performances and 0 = worst performances. The total score is provided as a percentage. Higher scores are indicative of better performance.

Changes in the perceived stability during activities of daily living will be measured with the Activities Balance Confidence scale (ABC^60,61) a 16-item questionnaire that measures an individual's confidence during activities without falling or experiencing a sense of unsteadiness. Each item is scored ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores are indicative of higher perceived stability.

Outcome measures specific for MP, SM, or post-stroke group

The Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS)⁶² part III will be administered in PD patients to assess changes in motor functionality. Part III (‘‘motor examination”) is composed of 18 items scored using a 5-point ordinal scale where 0 = “normal”, 1 = “slight”, 2 = “mild”, 3 = “moderate”, 4 = “severe”. Higher scores indicate increased severity. According to Jankovic,⁶³ we will calculate 4 MDS-UPDRS III subscores: tremor (range 0–40 points), rigidity (range 0–20 points), bradykinesia (range 0–52 points), and Postural instability (range 0–20 points) subscores.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)⁶⁴ will be administered to MS patients to evaluate changes in their level of disability. It provides a total score on a scale that ranges from 0 to 10 in 0.5-unit increments. Higher scores indicate higher levels of disability.

The Fugl-Meyer Assessment – Upper Extremity (FMA-UL)⁶⁵ and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)⁶⁶ will be administered to assess the sensory-motor functions of the upper limb only in post-stroke patients. Specifically, the FMA-UL, a stroke-specific, performance-based impairment index, will be used to assess the motor functioning of the upper limb. Scoring is based on direct observation of performance. Items are scored using a 3-point ordinal scale where 0 = cannot perform, 1 = performs partially, and 2 = performs fully. The total possible motor score for the upper extremity is 66.

The ARAT is a 19-item measure assessing the upper extremity performance (coordination, dexterity, and functioning). Items are scored using a 4-point ordinal scale where 0 = “no movement”, 1= “movement task is partially performed”, 2 = “movement task is completed but takes abnormally long”, and 3 = “movement is performed normally”. Scores range from 0 to 57 points with higher scores indicating better performance.

Other outcomes

Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data will be collected at each time-point of evaluation on a Siemens Prisma 3.0 T scanner (optional evaluation). Specifically, structural connectivity data will be collected using DWI (Echo planar imaging (EPI) multi-shell DWI, 5 b0 images, 50 encoding directions with b = 1000 s/mm² and 50 with b = 2000s/mm² TR = 3600 ms, TE = 92 ms, 2 mm³ resolution, 72 slices). Moreover, functional connectivity will be explored with a resting state functional MRI sequence (TR = 2570 ms, TE = 15/34/54 ms, matrix size = 64 × 64 × 31, resolution = 3.75 × 3.75 × 4.5 mm³, 200 volumes).

Data collection

Demographic characteristics and the level of the technological expertise of patients will be collected at the baseline evaluation (T0); data from participation, clinical, functional, and motor measures (primary and secondary outcomes) will be collected by blinded examiners/assessors at each time-point of evaluation (T0, T1, T2); to ensure that patients follow the prescribed intervention, paper diaries will be used in the UC group to record the date of execution, the number of exercises performed, the time spent, and any difficulties encountered during the exercise training. In contrast, the TR group will have their adherence automatically collected through the digital platform; finally, data on the usability and acceptability of the technological solutions and safety of interventions will also be collected post-intervention (T1). Specifically, the technological systems usability will be evaluated with the System Usability Scale (SUS),⁶⁷ the technological acceptability as measured by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)⁶⁸ in PD, MS, and post-stroke patients, while the safety issues (i.e., adverse events related to the intervention throughout the study duration) with “ad-hoc” clinical questionnaire. Finally, data on adherence to the rehabilitative program and performance levels at rehabilitation exercises will be automatically collected through a TR platform.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses on outcome measures will be conducted using Jamovi 2.2⁶⁹ (https://www.jamovi.org). Descriptive statistics of the sample will include frequencies for categorical data, median and interquartile range (IQR) for ordinal variables, and Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for continuous measures. The assumption of normality will be checked by the Shapiro-Wilk test for continuous variables. We will investigate statistically significant after-treatment changes in primary and secondary outcome measures according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. An Intention-to-treat approach will be carried out to address missing data. A treatment effect (TR vs. UC) will be investigated through repeated measures ANOVA. Moreover, a score modification at follow-up (T2, 2 months after treatment) in both groups will be evaluated by means of regression analyses over time considering previous values at baseline and T1.

Discussion

The increasing demand for rehabilitation among people with neurological conditions claims the identification of innovative digital solutions able to enhance access to rehabilitation services while promoting quality-of-life, clinical, and functional outcomes. Results from the present RCT will inform about the usability, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of TR protocols with digital (Homing) and robotic (iCONE) tools in reducing the perceived level of disability in post-stroke, PD, and MS patients.

The reason for choosing Homing and iCONE (“pros”) is that they are designed to enhance an intensive rehabilitation program with task-oriented exercises. The task-oriented training is a well-known rehabilitation approach that can have a positive impact on recovery by enhancing brain plasticity after brain injury or neurodegeneration. Moreover, intensive multisensory rehabilitation is particularly effective, but it requires a high level of commitment from both patients and physiotherapists, resulting in high costs for the healthcare system.

Overcoming these obstacles to rehabilitation can be challenging, but these two systems offer ways to help. iCONE and Homing systems allow for controlled and customized task-oriented exercises based on the unique characteristics of each patient at home. Screens and visual/auditory feedback provide sensory input, promoting learning and engagement through the interactive nature of the technological device. Furthermore, both iCONE and Homing are cloud-based systems, allowing the clinical staff to manage remotely the rehabilitation intervention. Finally, these technological systems are ease transportable, permitting their use across various settings including the patients’ home or other non-hospital environments. It's worth highlighting that one of the major “cons” of telerehabilitation could be represented by the inability of the therapist to act in case of symptoms and adverse events and providing the patients with some home-based solutions to monitor vital parameters during the rehabilitation protocol could be important to promote safety during the telerehabilitation session (and after it). Future steps of development could integrate the system with digital devices for telemonitoring.

We expect that TR protocols will be both usable and acceptable for people with CNDs in line with previous data.^10,17,18,22 It is well known that TR can serve as a powerful tool to strengthen rehabilitation in primary health care increasing access to care and overcoming barriers. TR has proven to be useful and effective for patients with NCD during the lockdown period due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but should become a constant asset to ensure continuity of care from the clinic to the patient's home.⁷⁰ The adoption of digital and robotic technologies within the TR approach will allow for overcoming accessibility and cost barriers and scaling up rehabilitation services to patients in need from the early stages of the disease.

The flexibility that characterizes TR protocols will allow people with CNDs to freely choose when to complete each daily rehabilitation session in relation to their preferences and daily needs and routines. This option increases the engagement and compliance of patients, promoting the achievement of health and quality of life outcomes.⁷¹

In addition, we expect that the TR approach will determine several positive effects on quality of life, reducing the perceived level of disability. Our previous studies in the field showed that the TR approach with digital or robotic tools ensured the continuity of care in people with CNDs, with high levels of adherence to treatment,^10,11,13,17 short- and long-term beneficial effects on both motor and non-motor abilities,^{11,13,17,19,20,23,28} and improved quality of life domains such as participation and autonomy in daily routine.^{10,11,13,17,19,23}

This study is not without limitations. We recognize that technical problems such as the lack of internet connectivity and insufficient space for motor exercises at home may hinder the availability of TR treatment. Additionally, the follow-up evaluation period is relatively short due to study constraints.

Conclusion

The implementation of TR protocols with robotics and digital tools, developed and validated with an evidence-based approach, will enable a more targeted and effective response to the growing need for rehabilitation linked to chronic neurological conditions. We expect that the flexibility that characterizes the TR protocols will promote the motivation and engagement of patients in their continuum of care, enhancing adherence to treatment and the achievement of health and quality-of-life outcomes. Future steps of implementation could integrate the technological platform with digital devices for telemonitoring. This will enable real-time tracking of vital parameters (e.g., blood pressure and heart rate) for each patient, along with performance data and treatment adherence. Such integration will allow for better monitoring of safety during the rehabilitation sessions.^72,73

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076241228928 - Supplemental material for Efficacy of telerehabilitation with digital and robotic tools for the continuity of care of people with chronic neurological disorders: The TELENEURO@REHAB protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076241228928 for Efficacy of telerehabilitation with digital and robotic tools for the continuity of care of people with chronic neurological disorders: The TELENEURO@REHAB protocol for a randomized controlled trial by Federica Rossetto, Fabiola Giovanna Mestanza Mattos, Elisa Gervasoni, Marco Germanotta, Arianna Pavan, Davide Cattaneo, Irene Aprile and Francesca Baglio in DIGITAL HEALTH

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the “Ico Falck Foundation” for the financial support.

Contributorship

Conceptualization of the work: FB, IA, DC and FR; writing original draft: FR, FB, FGMM, MG; review and editing: FGMM, EG, MG, and AP; All authors approved of the final 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.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi and was registered as a clinical trial on clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT06009770). Prospective participants will be fully informed of the aims and procedures of the project. A reporting procedure will be in place to ensure that any serious adverse events are reported to the Chief Investigator. Informed written consent will be obtained from all participants before the study initiation.

Funding

This study is supported by Ico Falck Foundation (Milan) within the project named TELENEURO@REHAB.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (grant number MS-1610-37015-Enhancement).

Guarantor

FR.

ORCID iD

Federica Rossetto

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Feigin

Nichols

Alam

, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology 2019; 18: 459–480.

Cieza

Causey

Kamenov

, et al. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet 2020; 396: 2006–2017.

Negrini

Selb

Kiekens

, et al. and 3rd Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting participants. Rehabilitation definition for research purposes. A global stakeholders’ initiative by Cochrane Rehabilitation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2022; 36: 405–414.

Rogers

Davies

Pink

, et al. Parkinson’s disease: Summary of updated NICE guidance. Bmj 2017; 358.

Keus

Munneke

Graziano

, et al. European physiotherapy guideline for Parkinson’s disease. The Netherlands: KNGF/ParkinsonNet, 2014, vol. 191.

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/rehabilitation-2030-a-call-for-action

Dorsey

Topol

. Telemedicine 2020 and the next decade. The Lancet 2020; 395: 59.

Topol

. The topol review. In: Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. Eric Jeffrey, 2019, pp.1–48.

Realdon

Rossetto

Nalin

, et al. Technology-enhanced multi-domain at home continuum of care program with respect to usual care for people with cognitive impairment: The Ability-TelerehABILITation study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC psychiatry 2016; 16: 1–9.

10.

Isernia

Pagliari

Jonsdottir

, et al. and HEAD study group. Efficiency and patient-reported outcome measures from clinic to home: The human empowerment aging and disability program for digital-health rehabilitation. Frontiers in Neurology 2019; 10: 1206.

11.

Isernia

Di Tella

Pagliari

, et al. Effects of an innovative telerehabilitation intervention for people with Parkinson's disease on quality of life, motor, and non-motor abilities. Frontiers in Neurology 2020; 11: 846.

12.

Di Tella

Pagliari

Blasi

, et al. Integrated telerehabilitation approach in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2020; 26: 385–399.

13.

Pagliari

Di Tella

Jonsdottir

, et al. Effects of home-based virtual reality telerehabilitation system in people with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2021; 1357633X211054839.

14.

Rossetto

Borgnis

Blasi

, et al. System Integrated Digital Empowerment and Rehabilitation to promote patient Activation and well-Being (SIDERA^ B): Protocol for a Randomized Crossover Trial on Effectiveness and Implementation. medRxiv 2022. 2022-04.

15.

Isernia

Pagliari

Bianchi

LNC

, et al. Characteristics, components, and efficacy of telerehabilitation approaches for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022; 19: 15165.

16.

Isernia

Pagliari

Morici

, et al. Telerehabilitation approaches for people with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2023; 12: 64.

17.

Rossetto

Isernia

Realdon

, et al. A digital health home intervention for people within the Alzheimer’s disease continuum: Results from the ability-TelerehABILITation pilot randomized controlled trial. Annals of Medicine 2023a; 55: 1080–1091.

18.

Rossetto

Borgnis

Isernia

, et al. System Integrated Digital Empowering and teleRehabilitation to promote patient Activation and well-Being in chronic disabilities: A usability and acceptability study. Frontiers in Public Health 2023b; 11.

19.

Aprile

Germanotta

Cruciani

, et al. Upper limb robotic rehabilitation after stroke: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 2020a; 44: 3–14.

20.

Aprile

Guardati

Cipollini

, et al. Robotic rehabilitation: An opportunity to improve cognitive functions in subjects with stroke. An Explorative Study. Frontiers in Neurology 2020b; 11: 588285.

21.

Gassert

Dietz

. Rehabilitation robots for the treatment of sensorimotor deficits: A neurophysiological perspective. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2018; 15: 1–15.

22.

Aprile

Gallotti

Schirru

, et al. Robotic telerehabilitation: A feasibility study in patients with stroke. Gait & Posture 2022a; 97: 25–26.

23.

Aprile

Conte

Cruciani

, et al. Efficacy of robot-assisted gait training combined with robotic balance training in subacute stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2022b; 11: 5162.

24.

Aprile

Guardati

Cipollini

, et al. Influence of cognitive impairment on the recovery of subjects with subacute stroke undergoing upper limb robotic rehabilitation. Brain Sciences 2021; 11: 587.

25.

Camardella

Cappiello

Curto

, et al. A Random Tree Forest decision support system to personalize upper extremity robot-assisted rehabilitation in stroke: A pilot study. In 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. 2022, July.

26.

Campagnini

Liuzzi

Galeri

, et al. Cross-Validation of Machine Learning Models for the Functional Outcome Prediction after Post-Stroke Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation. In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) (pp. 4950-4953). IEEE. 2022, July.

27.

Morone

De Sire

Martino Cinnera

, et al. Upper limb robotic rehabilitation for patients with cervical spinal cord injury: A comprehensive review. Brain Sciences 2021; 11: 1630.

28.

Calabrò

Morone

Naro

, et al. Robot-assisted training for upper limb in stroke (ROBOTAS): An observational, multicenter study to identify determinants of efficacy. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2021; 10: 5245.

29.

Morone

Pichiorri

. Post-Stroke rehabilitation: Challenges and new perspectives. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2023; 12: 550.

30.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

, et al. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007; 39: 175–191.

31.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

, et al. Statistical power analyses using G* power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 2009; 41: 1149–1160.

32.

Federici

Bracalenti

Meloni

, et al. World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation 2017; 39: 2347–2380.

33.

Postuma

Berg

Stern

, et al. MDS Clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 2015; 30: 1591–1601.

34.

Goetz

Poewe

Rascol

, et al. Movement disorder society task force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: Status and recommendations the movement disorder society task force on rating scales for Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 2004; 19: 1020–1028.

35.

Polman

Reingold

Banwell

, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals of Neurology 2011; 69: 292–302.

36.

Kurtzke

. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33(11): 1444.

37.

Conti

Bonazzi

Laiacona

, et al. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-Italian version: Regression based norms and equivalent scores. Neurological Sciences 2015; 36: 209–214.

38.

Ferguson

. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription 9th Ed. 2014. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 2014; 58: 328.

39.

Schmidt

Lee

. Motor learning and performance: From principles to application. 5th ed. Windsor, ON, Canada: Human Kinetics, 2013, pp. 336.

40.

Huang

Wolf

. Recent developments in biofeedback for neuromotor rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2006; 3.

41.

Selzer

Clarke

Cohen

, et al. Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

42.

Rasova

. Neurorehabilitation of People with Impaired Mobility Interventions and Assessment Tools. Czech Republic: Third Medical Faculty, Charles University, 2017.

43.

Brennan

Dorronzoro Zubiete

Caulfield

. Feedback design in targeted exercise digital biofeedback systems for home rehabilitation: A scoping review. Sensors 2019; 20: 181.

44.

Sigrist

Rauter

Reiner

, et al. Terminal feedback outperforms concurrent visual, auditory, and haptic feedback in learning a complex rowing-type task. J. Motor Behav 2013; 20: 21–53.

45.

Bressi

, et al.

Upper limb home-based robotic rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients: A pilot study.

Frontiers in Neurorobotics 2023; 17: 1130770.

46.

Henze

. Recommendation on Rehabilitation Services for Persons with Multiple Sclerosis in Europe. European Multiple Sclerosis Platform. Available online: https://www.eurims.org/News/recommendations-on-rehabilitation-services-for-persons-with-multiple-sclerosis-in-europe.html. 2012.

47.

Narayan Arya

, et al.

Meaningful task-specific training (MTST) for stroke rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial.

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2012; 19: 193–211.

48.

Jurkiewicz

Marzolini

. Adherence to a home-based exercise program for individuals after stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2011; 18: 277–284.

49.

Santangelo

Siciliano

Pedone

, et al. Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in an Italian population sample. Neurological Sciences 2015; 36: 585–591.

50.

Giovagnoli

Del Pesce

Mascheroni

, et al. Trail making test: Normative values from 287 normal adult controls. The Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences 1996; 17: 305–309.

51.

Smith

. Symbol digit modalities test. Los Angeles: Western psychological services, 1973, pp. 1–22.

52.

Nocentini

Giordano

Vincenzo

, et al. The symbol digit modalities test–oral version: Italian normative data. Functional Neurology 2006; 21: 93–96.

53.

Steer

Cavalieri

Leonard

, et al. Use of the beck depression inventory for primary care to screen for major depression disorders. General Hospital Psychiatry 1999; 21: 106–111.

54.

Spielberger

C. D.

State-trait anxiety inventory for adults, 1983.

55.

Pedrabissi

Santinello

. Verifica della validità dello STAI forma Y di Spielberger. Giunti Organizzazioni Speciali. 1989.

56.

Desrosiers

Bravo

Hébert

, et al. Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: Reliability, validity, and norms studies. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 751–755.

57.

Feys

Lamers

Francis

, et al. Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Assessments Consortium. The Nine-Hole Peg Test as a manual dexterity performance measure for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 2017; 23: 711–720.

58.

Anastasi

Carpinella

Gervasoni

, et al. Instrumented version of the modified dynamic gait index in patients with neurologic disorders. PM&R 2019; 11: 1312–1319.

59.

Franchignoni

Horak

Godi

, et al. Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation System’s Test: The mini-BESTest. Journal of ehabilitation Medicine: Official Journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2010; 42: 323.

60.

Cattaneo

Regola

Meotti

. Validity of six balance disorders scales in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation 2006; 28: 789–795.

61.

Franchignoni

Giordano

Ronconi

, et al. Rasch validation of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale and its short versions in patients with Parkinson's disease. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2014; 46: 532–539.

62.

Goetz

Tilley

Shaftman

, et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2008; 23: 2129–2170.

63.

Jankovic

. Parkinson’s disease: Clinical features and diagnosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2008; 79: 368–376.

64.

Kurtzke

. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1444.

65.

Fugl-Meyer

Jaasko

Leyman

, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient: I. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1975; 975: 13–31.

66.

Lyle

. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1981; 4: 483–492.

67.

Brooke

. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 1996; 189: 4–7.

68.

Venkatesh

Bala

. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 2008; 39: 273–315.

69.

The jamovi project. jamovi. (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org. 2021.

70.

Giansanti

Pirrera

Meli

. The accessibility and the digital divide in the apps during the COVID-19. Comment on Cao, Et al. The impact of using mHealth apps on improving public health satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: A digital content value chain perspective. Healthcare 2022, July; 10: 479. 2022. In Healthcare (Vol. 10, No. 7, p. 1252). MDPI.

71.

Matamala-Gomez

Maisto

Montana

, et al. The role of engagement in teleneurorehabilitation: A systematic review. Frontiers in Neurology 2020; 354.

72.

Polverino

Ajčević

Catalan

, et al. Comprehensive telemedicine solution for remote monitoring of Parkinson’s disease patients with orthostatic hypotension during COVID-19 pandemic. Neurological Sciences 2022; 43: 3479–3487.

73.

Woo

Kim

Jeon

. Challenges in Parkinson’s disease care—in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Movement Disorders 2023; 16: 52.

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

0.03 MB