Exploring the Influence of Digitalization on Multidisciplinary Poststroke Rehabilitation Practice: Qualitative Study.
Ann Marie Hestetun-Mandrup, Charlotta Hamre, Anne Lund and 3 others
PMID 41701937WHAT IT FOUND
Therapists described videoconferencing and digital tools for coordination after discharge, but written reports still dominated cross-service communication.
They worried digital support could weaken relationships, especially for psychosocial care and complex motor rehab.
Key findings
01Videoconferencing was used for post-discharge follow-up and coordination, but paper-based reports remained the main communication tool across services.
02Participants described digital psychosocial conversations as flexible and accessible, but they said trust and therapeutic relationships were harder to build digitally.
03Participants used digital tools for monitoring and motor exercise, but they said virtual reality sessions and language training needed a professional present and that poor balance complicated independent digital exercise.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 study reported professionals' accounts, not patient outcomes. It included 12 health care professionals and no stroke survivors, so it cannot show how stroke survivors experienced these technologies. It was done in two Norwegian specialist settings, and most participants came from a hospital rather than a community clinic, so transfer to other services is uncertain. No psychologists took part as individual professionals, and only one participant had a psychology background, so the psychosocial support findings are incomplete. Data collection spanned two years across two recruitment periods, and digital technology use differed between the sites, so practice changes over time may affect interpretation. The study relied on interviews about reported practice, not observation, so it cannot show how routines worked in real time.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that digital tools improve stroke recovery. It is a qualitative study of 12 professionals' perceptions, with no patient outcomes, comparison group, or implementation effectiveness data.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →