Telehealth and Remote Interventions for Children With Cerebral Palsy: Scoping Review.
Marina Pagaki-Skaliora, Eileen Morrow, Tim Theologis
PMID 36041012WHAT IT FOUND
Evidence for telehealth in children with cerebral palsy is scarce and of poor quality, primarily from underpowered pilots.
While aggregate results suggest telehealth may match or improve face-to-face care for hand function, clinical recommendations are not possible due to methodological flaws and inconsistent outcome measures.
Key findings
01Existing evidence for telehealth interventions for children with cerebral palsy is scarce and of poor quality, primarily comprising underpowered pilot studies.
02Clinical recommendations for telehealth were not possible because of poor study design and underpowered results, despite aggregate findings suggesting potential benefits for hand function and accessibility.
03Most included studies lacked adequate participant descriptions, such as cerebral palsy neurological type or GMFCS level, making results difficult to interpret for clinical application.
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 evidence base is scarce and of poor quality, primarily comprising underpowered pilot studies. Most studies did not include adequate descriptions of participants, such as cerebral palsy neurological type or GMFCS level, making results difficult to interpret. There was substantial heterogeneity in participants and outcome measures, preventing direct comparison or meta-analysis of the included studies. The authors were unable to perform a formal critical appraisal of the included studies due to time and resource constraints, which may mean results are unduly influenced by poor methodology. Only 5 articles were included in the final review, summarizing 11 studies, which is a small number despite broad eligibility criteria.
Declared interests
None declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the aggregate positive findings as evidence that telehealth is equivalent to face-to-face care. The review explicitly states that clinical recommendations were not possible due to poor study design and underpowered results, and many individual studies showed no significant difference or were limited by low adherence.