Effects of telerehabilitation in occupational therapy practice: A systematic review.
Goris Hung Kn, Kenneth Nk Fong
PMID 31217758WHAT IT FOUND
Telerehabilitation in occupational therapy is feasible and often accepted by patients, but evidence for its effectiveness is weak.
Most studies were small or uncontrolled, and the few high-quality trials showed mixed results, with no clear proof that remote care beats face-to-face therapy.
Key findings
01Only 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 198 participants with a wide range of conditions, from cerebral palsy to stroke and breast cancer.
02Among the three randomised controlled trials, two showed benefits for the telerehabilitation group in specific areas like hand function and quality of life, but one found no difference between groups.
03Participants and caregivers generally reported satisfaction with telerehabilitation, although a minority preferred face-to-face intervention.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only 15 studies with a small total sample size of 198 participants. Most studies were low-quality quasi-experimental or single-case designs without control groups. Only three randomised controlled trials were identified, limiting conclusions about effectiveness. Interventions varied widely in technology, duration, and target population, making direct comparisons difficult. Follow-up periods were short, with only three studies conducting follow-up evaluations. The review excluded non-English studies and those unavailable in full text.
Declared interests
The paper does not report any funding sources or conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that telerehabilitation is as effective as face-to-face occupational therapy. The evidence base is small and of low quality, with only three randomised controlled trials showing mixed results. Feasibility and patient satisfaction do not equate to proven clinical efficacy for functional outcomes.