Table 2 Studies on stroke and telerehabilitation
Author | Year | Intervention | Outcomes of 1st and 2nd assessment | Setting | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Linder et al. | 2015 | Telerehabilitasyon group (n:51) Hand Mentor Pro robotic assisted wrist and finger active assistive range of motion Home exercise group (n:48) Active, active-assisted, and functional range of motion exercises | SIS CES–D | In-office visit | There was significant difference between groups on hand function (p < 0.05) |
Chumbler et al. | 2015 | Telerehabilitasyon group (STeleR) (n:25) Consisted of telephone and message-based function exercises and adaptive techniques for the daily life Conventional Care (n:23) Conventional rehabilitation care was applied to this group | FES SSPS-CS | Remotely | STeleR group was better on satisfaction (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences on FES (p > 0.05) |
Chen et al. | 2017 | Telerehabilitasyon group (n:26) Live video-conferencing was conducted by physiotherapist Conventional Physiotherapy Group(n:25) Conventional face-to-face physiotherapy was applied | mBI BBS | In-office visit | There was no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05) |
Chen et al. | 2020 | Home-Based Telerehabilitasyon (n:22) Telerehabilitation based home exercise program was applied with the assistance of physiotherapist Conventional Physiotherapy (n:22) Consists of face-to-face physiotherapy sessions | FMA BI | In-office visit | Telerehabilitation group was better in terms of hand function (p < 0.05) |
Wu et al. | 2020 | Intervention Group (n:32) Multi-disciplinary care model was applied via the teleconferencing Control Group (n:32) Extremity position, transfer activities, range of motion exercises was prescribed | FMA BBS 6MWT mBI SSQoL | In-office visit | Telerehabilitation group was significantly higher score on Fugl-Meyer Motor Function Assessment, Berg Balance Scale ve Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (p < 0.05) |
Asano et al. | 2021 | Telerehabilitation-Based Physiotherapy (n:50) Standardized telerehabilitation, including physiotherapy and ergotherapy was carried out Conventional Care Group (n:48) Standard hospital care was conducted | LLFDI SF-36 TFMWT 2MWT mBI | In-office visit | There was no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05) |