Back to Search
Start Over
Critically appraised paper: Tailored prescription of digitally enabled rehabilitation may improve mobility, but not physical activity, in geriatric and neurological rehabilitation [commentary]
- Source :
- Journal of Physiotherapy, Vol 66, Iss 4, Pp 268-(2020), PLoS Medicine
- Publication Year :
- 2020
- Publisher :
- Elsevier, 2020.
-
Abstract
- Background Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. Methods and findings We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0–3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0–3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference −0.2, 95% CI −2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%–19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628<br />In a randomised controlled trial, Leanne Hassett and colleagues investigate the impact of digitally-enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation on activity and mobility outcomes in Australia.<br />Author summary Why was this study done? A higher dose of therapy in physical rehabilitation is associated with better outcomes; however, current rehabilitation models deliver low therapy doses. Use of digital devices such as virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices can be enjoyable, provide feedback on performance, and may enable a greater dose of task-specific therapy to improve outcomes. Current evidence is yet to confidently confirm the effects of rehabilitation using digital devices in addition to usual rehabilitation care on mobility tasks such as walking and other important outcomes such as quality of life. What did the researchers do and find? In a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, 300 people with walking difficulties (age 72 ± 16 years, 50% female) received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital aged care and neurological rehabilitation alone, or in addition used a range of affordable devices such as virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld devices to target mobility and physical activity, as individually prescribed by a physiotherapist for 6 months. On average participants in the intervention group used 4 ± 1 devices in the inpatient setting and 2 ± 1 devices in the post-hospital setting. This approach was feasible and enjoyed, and demonstrated it could be provided across care settings including the post-hospital setting with mostly remote support. Clinically important improvement was seen in mobility at 3 weeks and 6 months after baseline, but this was not accompanied by greater time spent upright. No adverse events were reported by participants whilst undertaking rehabilitation using digital devices, and there was no difference in the rate of falls between groups. What do these findings mean? Digitally enabled rehabilitation using a range of devices prescribed by a physiotherapist to target a range of mobility limitations across care settings for adults with mixed health conditions can improve mobility but not time spent upright. These results need to be interpreted in light of study limitations including a 15%–19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes. Future models of rehabilitation should investigate incorporating digital devices to enhance inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation, but prescription should ensure quality and quantity of practice.
- Subjects :
- Man-Computer Interface
medicine.medical_treatment
Psychological intervention
Consumer Electronics
Computer Architecture
law.invention
Randomized controlled trial
law
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Range of Motion, Articular
Rehabilitation
Neurological Rehabilitation
Virtual Reality
Prescriptions
Neurology
Engineering and Technology
medicine.symptom
Range of motion
Research Article
Biotechnology
Computer and Information Sciences
medicine.medical_specialty
Patients
Visual impairment
Equipment
Bioengineering
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation Medicine
Intervention (counseling)
medicine
Humans
Medical prescription
Exercise
Measurement Equipment
Aged
Inpatients
business.industry
lcsh:RM1-950
Australia
Biology and Life Sciences
Physical Activity
Health Care
lcsh:Therapeutics. Pharmacology
Mobility Limitation
Human Factors Engineering
Neurorehabilitation
Physical therapy
Medical Devices and Equipment
Electronics
business
User Interfaces
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 18369553
- Volume :
- 66
- Issue :
- 4
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Journal of Physiotherapy
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....d38649381b075428b59e92c9c95ae82e