Digital Health Technologies to Support At-Home Recovery of People with Stroke: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly being utilized to facilitate receiving rehabilitation services remotely, offering innovative solutions to enhance recovery outcomes. This scoping review examines the role of DHT in home-based stroke rehabilitation, focusing on its applications, effectiveness, and limitations. It identifies key advancements and future directions for improving stroke recovery through technological innovations. (2) Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, a systematic search was conducted across multiple databases to identify studies involving DHT for home-based stroke rehabilitation. Eligible studies incorporated technologies for monitoring and evaluation. Data extraction followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines, synthesizing findings across various research designs. (3) Results: Ten studies were reviewed, categorizing technologies into wearable devices, smartphones, and sensor-based solutions. These tools primarily assessed mobility, upper extremity function, cognitive function, daily living activities, and continuous physiological monitoring. High feasibility and usability were reported, though challenges included small sample sizes and user-centered design limitations. (4) Conclusions: Most DHTs used for evaluating and monitoring home-based stroke rehabilitation are wearable and sensor-based, mainly focusing on mobility and upper extremity function. Their application is effective, but limitations remain. Future research should address these gaps to enhance usability and coverage.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".