Feasibility of Intensive Multidisciplinary Telerehabilitation Combined with Health Coaching for Underserved Stroke Survivors: A Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Telerehabilitation (TR) can be as effective as in-clinic therapy; however, the implementation of barriers and facilitators to TR is unknown, especially in the underserved and rural population. In addition to TR, self-management support (SMS) interventions have been successful in improving outcomes for stroke survivors using telehealth. We explored the following: (1) Is an intensive multidisciplinary TR intervention combined with SMS feasible to deliver virtual postacute stroke care? (2) Does an intensive TR intervention combined with SMS lead to improvements in level of impairment, functional outcomes, and quality of life? (3) Does an intensive TR intervention combined with SMS impact patient goal attainment? (4) What barriers and facilitators to TR are perceived by stroke survivors? Methods: Virtually assisted home rehabilitation after acute stroke-2 offered two sessions of rehabilitation therapy, 3 days a week, for 4 weeks, consisting of two of the following disciplines: occupational therapy, physical therapy, or speech therapy. SMS was offered during the first and last session each week. Quantitative outcomes were completed at baseline assessment (week 1), postintervention assessment (week 6), and final assessment (week 10). Following grounded theory, semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed to identify barriers and facilitators of TR. Results: A total of N = 15 participants were consented into the program. When excluding the 3 participants who withdrew within or before week 1 of intervention, the average weekly number of therapy sessions completed by the remaining 12 participants was 5.6 (standard deviation [SD] 0.79), 5.6 (SD 0.90), 5.2 (SD 2.19), and 4.9 (SD 1.98) for weeks 2–5, respectively. Posterior probability (PP) results indicated very strong (PP >97%) to extreme (PP >99%) support in favor of change over time across most outcomes, including decreased modified Rankin Scale (marginal improvement of −0.731) and Patient Health Questionnaire scores (−3.606) and increased Montreal Cognitive Assessment (+4.178). Nine participants took part in the semi-structured interviews, and two major themes emerged: 1—“Perceived Access/Delivery” and 2—“Perceived Therapy Advantages.” In regard to the goal attainment, low sample sizes limited precision for analyses, thus these were not included in analyses. Conclusion: TR after acute stroke is feasible, though barriers still exist. This study proved to be a safe and attainable option for underserved populations of stroke survivors, demonstrating high attendance, improved outcomes, and no intervention-related adverse events.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».