Methodology for a Series of Rapid Reviews on Virtual Care in Rehabilitation, Reviewing Its Advantages and Challenges to Inform Best Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Over the past two decades, the utilization of virtual care in rehabilitation has witnessed a significant surge; this is owing to the widespread availability of technological tools and the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, discussions surrounding the relevance and benefits of telerehabilitation have gained prominence among practitioners, who continually seek to enhance patient care while maintaining high standards of quality. Associated with these discussions are concerns over being able to provide care in an ethical way, as well as addressing equity issues that might be hindered or improved via telerehabilitation. To address the ethical and equity concerns around telerehabilitation, a series of five parallel rapid reviews of the scientific literature were conducted, focusing on different rehabilitation fields: physiotherapy and occupational therapy (1); speech therapy and audiology (2); psychology and neuropsychology (3); and in two age groups: older adults (4); and pediatrics and young adults (5). The objective of this series of rapid reviews is to evaluate the evidence presented regarding telerehabilitation; identifying and recommending best practices especially in the realm of ethics and equity. Methods: Medline; CINAHL; and EMBASE were searched between 2010 and 2023 for English or French-language reviews (2010–2020) and individual studies (2020–2023) pertaining to telerehabilitation and these fields of interest. Data were extracted following a standardized form focusing on: outcomes; findings; quality assessment/biases; limitations; and discussion of ethical and equity concerns. Results: The results are presented according to the most relevant themes, which include: findings; strengths; limitations; and ethical/equity considerations. Conclusions: This research presents a methodology rarely published before, on how to conduct multiple parallel rapid reviews on the theme of telerehabilitation, based on different rehabilitation fields and age groups. This research will shape future guidelines and standards in applying ethical and equity standards in telerehabilitation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".