Telerehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s disease: protocol of a randomised clinical trial of mixed methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Telerehabilitation (TR) programmes are increasingly recognised for their feasibility and potential benefits, such as eliminating travel time, reducing costs and providing a more comfortable rehabilitation experience at home. However, the comparative efficacy of remote physiotherapy compared with traditional in-person sessions for individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effects of TR compared with in-person physiotherapy in individuals with PD, focusing on both motor and non-motor outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, single-blind clinical trial with a mixed-methods approach. A total of 22 individuals diagnosed with PD will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group will receive TR, consisting of remote physiotherapy sessions conducted once a week for 1 hour over a 4-month period. The control group will receive the same interventions in person. Interventions will include global muscle strengthening exercises, balance training, gait and motor coordination exercises, and cognitive training. The primary outcome will be motor function, measured using part III of the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will include cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), gait (Functional Gait Assessment), mobility (Timed Up and Go Test) and quality of life (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire). Data will be analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance to compare outcomes between groups across four assessment points (baseline, midpoint, postintervention and 2 months follow-up). Additionally, a qualitative phase will explore participants' perceptions and experiences regarding TR and in-person interventions, with assessments carried out 2 months after the completion of the 24-week interventions, through semistructured interviews that will be analysed using Bardin's Content Analysis technique. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (approval number: 5.553.701). All participants will provide written informed consent before inclusion. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and communication with participants and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RBR-6h5knrj.
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 | 0.042 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.011 |
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".