MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937947857 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1595750

Diversity of practices in telerehabilitation for children with disabilities and effective intervention characteristics: results from a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2937947857 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal Camden, Gabrielle Pratte, Florence Fallon, Mélanie Couture, Jade Berbari, Michel Tousignant

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-RéadaptationUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsTelerehabilitationPsychological interventionCoachingIntervention (counseling)MedicineRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationPhysical therapyPopulationDiversity (politics)TelemedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHealth careNursingPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To describe the characteristics and effectiveness of pediatric telerehabilitation interventions offered to children 0–12 years old or to their families.Methods: A systematic review was conducted on randomized control trials published between 2007 and 2018 involving at least one rehabilitation professional who provided services remotely. Information was extracted about key study, participants and intervention characteristics. The percentage of outcomes that improved were computed per study, and per intervention characteristic.Results: Out of 4472 screened articles, 23 were included. Most studies were published after 2016 and evaluated outcomes related to the child’s behavior (n = 12, 52.2%) or to the parent (n = 10, 43.5%), such as parental skills or stress. Overall, 56.1% (SD: 38.5%) of evaluated outcomes improved following telerehabilitation. A great diversity of population and teleintervention characteristics was observed. Effective interventions tended to target parents, centered around an exercise program, used a coaching approach, focused on improving children’s behavioral functioning, lasted >8 weeks and were offered at least once a week.Conclusions: Intervention characteristics that appear to yield better outcomes should inform the development of future telerehabilitation studies, especially in populations for whom telerehabilitation is currently understudied (e.g., children’s with physical functioning difficulties). Future trials should compare telerehabilitation interventions to well-described evidence-based face-to-face interventions, and document their cost-effectiveness.Implications for RehabilitationDespite a great variety in practices, telerehabilitation might be as effective as face-to-face interventions, across disciplines, for a variety of clinical outcomes.Telerehabilitation might be more effective when coaching approaches are used, especially to achieve outcomes related to children’s behavior or parental skills.Further research is required to better understand the characteristics of effective telerehabilitation interventions, and to determine how these characteristics may differ for specific populations and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations217
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207