4.6 Article

Telerehabilitation for Stroke is Here to Stay. But at What Cost?

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 36, Issue 6, Pages 331-334

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15459683221100492

Keywords

stroke; rehabilitation; telerehabilitation; workforce; digital health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of telerehabilitation has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and although evidence supporting its efficacy is limited, current systematic reviews suggest that it is not inferior to face-to-face treatment. However, challenges such as inclusivity, differences in online interactions, and supporting staff fatigue need to be addressed for widespread adoption.
The use of telerehabilitation after stroke has necessarily increased in the last 2 years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many rehabilitation teams rapidly adapted to offering their services remotely. Evidence supporting the efficacy of telerehabilitation is still scarce with few randomized controlled trials, although current systematic reviews suggest that telerehabilitation does not lead to inferior outcomes when compared to face-to-face treatment. Increasing experience of telerehabilitation however has highlighted some of the pitfalls that need to be solved before we see widespread pragmatic adoption of new practices. We must ensure that offering services using digital technologies does not exclude those who need our services. We must acknowledge that our interactions online differ, both in the way we relate to each other and in the content of clinical consultations. Furthermore, we need to consider how to support staff who may be feeling disconnected and fatigued after spending hours providing remote therapies. Telerehabilitation is likely here to stay and has potential to help deliver rehabilitation to the many people who could benefit, but there are obstacles, challenges and trade-offs to be considered and overcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available