Patient Satisfaction with In-Home Telerehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Introduction: Telerehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is supported by strong evidence on the effectiveness of such intervention and from a cost-benefit point of view. Satisfaction of patients toward in-home telerehabilitation after TKA has not yet been examined thoroughly in large-scale clinical trials. This study aims to compare satisfaction level of patients following in-home telerehabilitation (TELE) after TKA to one of the patients following a usual face-to-face home visit (STD) rehabilitation. Secondarily, to determine if any clinical or personal variables were associated to the level of satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was embedded in a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 205 patients randomized into two groups. Rehabilitation intervention was the same for both groups; only approach for service delivery differed (telerehabilitation or home visits). Participants were assessed at baseline (before TKA), at hospital discharge, and at 2 and 4 months postdischarge (E4) using functional outcomes. Patient satisfaction was measured using the validated Health Care Satisfaction Questionnaire (HCSQ) at E4. RESULTS: Characteristics of all participants were similar at baseline. Satisfaction level of both groups did not differ and was very high (over 85%). It was neither correlated to personal characteristics nor to improvements of functional level from preoperative to E4. Satisfaction was rather found associated to walking and stair-climbing performances. CONCLUSIONS: These results, in conjunction with evidences of clinical effectiveness and cost benefits demonstrated in the same sample of patients, strongly support the use of telerehabilitation to improve access to rehabilitation services and efficiency of service delivery after TKA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".