{"title":"The Era of Technology in Healthcare-An Evaluation of Telerehabilitation on Client Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Sharan Jaswal, Joyce Lo, Aaron Howe, Yifan Hao, Shangkai Zhu, Gobika Sithamparanathan, Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia","doi":"10.1007/s10926-024-10237-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence and examine the effect of telerehabilitation interventions compared to face-to-face rehabilitation interventions on physical functioning, mental health, and pain reduction among employed individuals, 18 years old and older.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search syntax was created and inputted into Ovid Medline, APA PsycINFO, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Critical appraisal of the included studies was conducted by two researchers to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was completed for the randomized controlled trials and GRADE was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 out of 4319 articles were included in this review. This systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant differences between telerehabilitation interventions for physical functioning, mental health, and pain reduction outcomes compared to traditional rehabilitation interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study findings indicate that telerehabilitation is less effective than in-person care for occupational therapy and physical therapy services. Future research may look at addressing the limitations of the current study to produce more conclusive results, such as exploring the length of the intervention, knowledge and confidence of intervention application, and follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022297849 on April 8th, 2022.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10237-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence and examine the effect of telerehabilitation interventions compared to face-to-face rehabilitation interventions on physical functioning, mental health, and pain reduction among employed individuals, 18 years old and older.
Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search syntax was created and inputted into Ovid Medline, APA PsycINFO, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Critical appraisal of the included studies was conducted by two researchers to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was completed for the randomized controlled trials and GRADE was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.
Results: A total of 16 out of 4319 articles were included in this review. This systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant differences between telerehabilitation interventions for physical functioning, mental health, and pain reduction outcomes compared to traditional rehabilitation interventions.
Conclusion: The study findings indicate that telerehabilitation is less effective than in-person care for occupational therapy and physical therapy services. Future research may look at addressing the limitations of the current study to produce more conclusive results, such as exploring the length of the intervention, knowledge and confidence of intervention application, and follow-ups.
Systematic review registration: This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022297849 on April 8th, 2022.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law. A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
