Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapist Practice: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Physical Therapy Association.
Alan C Lee, Judith E Deutsch, Lesley Holdsworth and 10 others
PMID 38513257WHAT IT FOUND
Telerehabilitation matches in-person care for patient satisfaction and often improves attendance.
It is safe with low adverse event rates. However, evidence for diagnostic accuracy and physical outcomes is weak or inconsistent, and cost savings depend heavily on patient travel distance.
Key findings
01Patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation is generally high and equivalent to in-person care, while attendance rates are often higher for telerehabilitation.
02The incidence of adverse events specific to telerehabilitation as a delivery mode is very low (0.58% overall), with no reported events directly caused by the technology.
03Evidence for diagnostic accuracy and physical outcomes like balance and function is weak, inconsistent, or based on small studies in non-real-world settings.
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
Most studies were unable to double-blind participants and therapists, which may introduce bias. Evidence for diagnostic accuracy comes from small studies in laboratory or clinical settings, not real-world practice. The scope is limited to physical therapist services; findings may not generalize to other disciplines. Cost analyses often excluded indirect costs like patient technology setup or travel time. Many predefined outcomes were not reported in the included studies, limiting the evidence base.
Declared interests
The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) funded the work. The development group members and staff declared no financial conflicts of interest relevant to the topic. Authors with intellectual conflicts (e.g., authorship on included studies) abstained from appraising those articles and voting.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume telerehabilitation is universally cost-effective or clinically equivalent for all conditions. Cost savings were only significant for patients living more than 30 km from the clinic, and evidence for diagnostic accuracy and physical outcomes was weak, inconsistent, or derived from non-real-world settings.