Feasibility of an iterative rehabilitation intervention for stroke delivered remotely using mobile health technology.
Emily A Kringle, I Made Agus Setiawan, Katlyn Golias and 2 others
PMID 31216917WHAT IT FOUND
Five chronic stroke survivors used a mobile app to practice goal-setting strategies remotely.
Participants reported high satisfaction and felt understood by therapists, with no adverse events. The study adapted the intervention protocol but did not test whether the approach improves function or reduces disability.
Key findings
01Participants reported high satisfaction with the remote intervention, with scores near the maximum possible.
02No adverse events, such as falls, occurred during the study, although therapists reviewed and clarified plans for safety.
03Memory impairment was a primary barrier to using the technology, requiring step-by-step guidance even for participants familiar with devices.
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 study included only five participants, so results cannot be generalized to the broader stroke population. The study did not measure efficacy or effectiveness, so it cannot determine if the intervention improves outcomes. Participants had previously received face-to-face training, so results may not apply to those new to metacognitive strategy training. The sample was recruited from a specific research laboratory's previous participants, introducing selection bias. Therapist acceptability was assessed anecdotally, not empirically.
Declared interests
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and non-U.S. government funding. The authors developed the iADAPTS system, which may introduce bias in how the system's feasibility was assessed.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this mobile app improves stroke rehabilitation outcomes. The study was designed to test feasibility and adapt the protocol, not to measure effectiveness. Changes in goal performance scores were variable and not analyzed for significance.