Review Special Issues

Telerehabilitation for community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults after musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review

  • Background: Musculoskeletal trauma at midlife and beyond imposes significant impact on function and quality of life: Rehabilitation is key to support early and sustained recovery. There are frequent barriers to attending in-person rehabilitation that may be overcome by the recent advances in technology (telerehabilitation). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published evidence on telerehabilitation as a delivery mode for adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma. Methods: We followed established guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. We searched the following databases up to June 23, 2018: Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, and SportDiscus. We included publications across all available years and languages for community-dwelling adults (50 years and older) with musculoskeletal trauma; and interventions using the following delivery modes: Apps, computer, telephone, videophone, videoconference, webcam, webpage, or similar media. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria: Five studies for hip fracture (n = 260) and one study for proximal humeral fracture rehabilitation (n = 17). Four of the studies used telephone as the delivery mode, one used computer and another used video-conferencing. Two of the studies were pre-post with no comparator group, and the remaining four studies were randomized controlled trials with low or unclear risk of bias. Studies established some modes of remote delivery as feasible, but the generalizability of the findings were limited. Two studies observed significant between-group differences (favoring the intervention) for physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy. Conclusion: Very few studies exist that tested the effect of telerehabilitation for recovery after musculoskeletal trauma later in life. Given the global burden imposed by musculoskeletal trauma, this review underscores an important gap in clinical knowledge.

    Citation: Maureen C. Ashe, Christina L. Ekegren, Anna M. Chudyk, Lena Fleig, Tiffany K. Gill, Dolores Langford, Lydia Martin-Martin, Patrocinio Ariza-Vega. Telerehabilitation for community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults after musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2018, 5(4): 316-336. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.4.316

    Related Papers:

    [1] Xinqi Dong, E-Shien Chang, Stephanie Bergren . The Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Chinese older Adults in the Greater Chicago Area—Findings from the PINE Study. AIMS Medical Science, 2014, 1(2): 87-102. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2014.2.87
    [2] Ruijia Chen, XinQi Dong . The Prevalence and Correlates of Gambling Participation among Community-Dwelling Chinese Older Adults in the U.S.. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(2): 90-103. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.2.90
    [3] Xinqi Dong, E-Shien Chang, Melissa A. Simon . Sense of Community among Chinese Older Adults in the Greater Chicago Area: Findings from the PINE Study. AIMS Medical Science, 2014, 1(1): 28-39. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2014.1.28
    [4] XinQi Dong . Addressing Health and Well-being of U.S. Chinese Older Adults through Community-Based Participatory Research: Introduction to the PINE Study. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(3): 261-270. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.3.261
    [5] Wendell C. Taylor, Kevin Rix, Ashley Gibson, Raheem J. Paxton . Sedentary behavior and health outcomes in older adults: A systematic review. AIMS Medical Science, 2020, 7(1): 10-39. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2020002
    [6] XinQi Dong, Manrui Zhang . The Prevalence of Neurological Symptoms among Chinese Older Adults in the Greater Chicago Area. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(1): 35-50. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.1.35
    [7] Maureen C. Ashe, Khalil Merali, Nicola Edwards, Claire Schiller, Heather M. Hanson, Lena Fleig, Karim M. Khan, Wendy L. Cook, Heather A. McKay . Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT. AIMS Medical Science, 2018, 5(2): 102-121. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.2.102
    [8] Christina L. Ekegren, Rachel E. Climie, William G. Veitch, Neville Owen, David W. Dunstan, Lara A. Kimmel, Belinda J. Gabbe . Sedentary behaviour and physical activity patterns in adults with traumatic limb fracture. AIMS Medical Science, 2019, 6(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2019.1.1
    [9] E-Shien Chang, Xinqi Dong . Personality Traits among Community-Dwelling Chinese Older Adults in the Greater Chicago Area. AIMS Medical Science, 2014, 1(2): 73-86. doi: 10.3934/Medsci.2014.2.73
    [10] Marie-Louise Bird, Janice J Eng, Brodie M. Sakakibara . Predicting interest to use mobile-device telerehabilitation (mRehab) by baby-boomers with stroke. AIMS Medical Science, 2018, 5(4): 337-347. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.4.337
  • Background: Musculoskeletal trauma at midlife and beyond imposes significant impact on function and quality of life: Rehabilitation is key to support early and sustained recovery. There are frequent barriers to attending in-person rehabilitation that may be overcome by the recent advances in technology (telerehabilitation). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published evidence on telerehabilitation as a delivery mode for adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma. Methods: We followed established guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. We searched the following databases up to June 23, 2018: Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, and SportDiscus. We included publications across all available years and languages for community-dwelling adults (50 years and older) with musculoskeletal trauma; and interventions using the following delivery modes: Apps, computer, telephone, videophone, videoconference, webcam, webpage, or similar media. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria: Five studies for hip fracture (n = 260) and one study for proximal humeral fracture rehabilitation (n = 17). Four of the studies used telephone as the delivery mode, one used computer and another used video-conferencing. Two of the studies were pre-post with no comparator group, and the remaining four studies were randomized controlled trials with low or unclear risk of bias. Studies established some modes of remote delivery as feasible, but the generalizability of the findings were limited. Two studies observed significant between-group differences (favoring the intervention) for physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy. Conclusion: Very few studies exist that tested the effect of telerehabilitation for recovery after musculoskeletal trauma later in life. Given the global burden imposed by musculoskeletal trauma, this review underscores an important gap in clinical knowledge.


    Abbreviations: ASCQ: Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire; BCT: Behavior Change Technique; CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; DASH: Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; EQ5D-5L: EuroQoL—5 levels; IPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire; IQR: Interquartile Range; MET: Metabolic Equivalent of Task; MFES: Modified Falls Efficacy Scale; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial; SPMSQ: Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; WHO: World Health Organization; YPAS: Yale Physical Activity Survey


    1. Introduction

    The global burden of musculoskeletal trauma is substantial [1]. Home-based rehabilitation has the potential for maximizing recovery after discharge from hospital with musculoskeletal trauma, such as hip fracture [2]. There are barriers to delivery of publicly-funded home rehabilitation [3,4], possibly because it is resource intensive, and or because of a chronic shortage of clinicians [5], especially in rural communities [6]. Telerehabilitation is a promising delivery mode innovation because it could minimize barriers to providing health care management. It is defined as “the provision of rehabilitation services at a distance using telecommunications technology as the delivery medium” [7] page 217 and can be delivered via a number of different modes, such as telephone, video (webcam, video-conferencing), mobile apps, web-based etc.

    The field of telerehabilitation for managing health conditions, such as heart disease [8] and stroke [9,10] is growing. However, less is known about this delivery mode for the prevention or management of impairments or disability after musculoskeletal trauma (i.e., from falls and fractures) in adults at midlife and older. Although a limited number of reviews are available [11,12] previous literature did not report or synthesize evidence on factors such as feasibility, generalizability, adherence or behavior change techniques employed—all key elements important to understand for future delivery of this mode of rehabilitation. Previous reviews included studies with participants who had musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, and although this is also an important focus, it is distinct from the experience of adults and older adults who have an acute (unexpected) trauma such as fracture. Further, the populations may be different. Based on population-level data, patients who had an elective total hip replacement compared with patients who had surgery for low-trauma hip fracture were younger, had fewer co-morbidities, and there were more men [13]. These contextual factors may or may not present different challenges for delivering care remotely, but it signals the need to provide an evidence synthesis specific to adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma.

    Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to provide a synthesis of available evidence of telerehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and older who sustained musculoskeletal trauma. We anticipate that this new knowledge will extend current evidence on the management of recovery after musculoskeletal trauma, and highlight gaps in evidence to inform further research agendas for this all too common health condition for adults and older adults.


    2. Methods


    2.1. Protocol and registration

    We completed a systematic review following the guidelines for conducting and reporting as established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [14]. Prior to starting the review, we registered the title and methods on PROSPERO CRD42017083447. Our review question was: What is the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for community-dwelling adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma?


    2.2. Systematic review team members

    Our review team has representation from the academic and clinical communities, with representation from Australia, Canada, Germany and Spain. In particular, our review team included registered and or practicing clinicians working in musculoskeletal health (MCA, CLE, TKG, DL, LM, PAV) who provided an important perspective for guiding the review process. Our team also includes a health psychologist (LF) who has a significant track record using behavior change theories. Many of the authors previously published numerous systematic reviews (MCA, CLE, AC, LF).


    2.3. Eligibility criteria (concepts)

    We only included peer-reviewed publications, and studies that represented the following concepts: Population: Community-dwelling adults (50 years and older) with musculoskeletal trauma; interventions: Telerehabilitation using apps, computer, telephone, videophone, videoconference, webcam, webpage, or similar media; comparator: Usual care (in-person rehabilitation) or no rehabilitation; and type: Randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series, and feasibility/pilot or implementation studies.


    2.4. Information sources and searches

    One author (MCA) developed the search strategy and the other co-authors reviewed it for completeness and comprehensiveness. We searched the following electronic databases for all years until June 23, 2018: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Medline (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, and SportDiscus. Figure 1 is the search strategy used for Ovid MEDLINE. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO clinical trial registry (June 30, 2018) and conducted a focused search in Google Scholar for the following keywords in the title only: (1) fracture AND (telephone OR interview OR interviewing OR telerehabilitation) NOT protocol; and (2) fracture AND telephone OR telerehabilitation. We uploaded the identified citations into Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) which removed duplicate references. For all studies accepted at the full text level, we conducted a forward citation search, and reviewed the reference lists. For the reference lists, one author (MCA) screened them and excluded any webpages, reviews, and references to methods/outcome measures, before uploading the remaining citations to Covidence. We included literature from all years and in all languages. If a publication was written in a language other than English, we requested an English version from the authors, or used Google Translate and resources within the team.

    Figure 1. Search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE.


    2.5. Study selection (Level 1, Level 2)

    Following the search from the target databases (and removal of duplicates), two of four authors (MCA, CLE, AC, PAV) independently screened titles and abstracts of studies (Level 1), using Covidence. A third author reviewed any conflicts and made the final decision at Level 1 (LF). We repeated this process for the full text articles (Level 2) with two of five co-authors (MCA, CLE, AC, LF, TKG) who independently screened the full-text article. If we were uncertain if an intervention was considered telerehabilitation, we contacted the first author for confirmation.


    2.6. Data collection process

    We extracted the following information for included studies: Author, year, country, setting, injury, recruitment (including sampling frame) and retention, population, intervention (including mode of delivery), behavior change techniques, outcomes, and findings. We contacted authors, if necessary, to obtain additional information. One author extracted data (MCA) and four authors confirmed data extraction (PAV, CLE TKG, LM).


    2.7. Risk of bias assessment (internal validity)

    We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [15] to assess the quality of included studies for RCTs. Two of three authors (MCA, TKG, PAV) independently reviewed each included study using Covidence to record their decisions. No author reviewed an included study that they authored, and final decisions were based on consensus between reviewers. We included all RCTs, regardless of the determined risk of bias, but planned to conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of excluding studies with higher risk assessments, if possible. For the category of blinding of personnel and participants, we used the Cochrane Handbook (Chapter 8) to guide our evaluation for risk of bias [16]. Specifically, we did not want to unfairly judge studies based on challenges with blinding group allocation from participants and personnel, a known challenge for rehabilitation trials [17]. Therefore, two authors discussed whether knowledge of group allocation would cause a substantial change in behavior in one group over the other (e.g., high risk of bias).


    2.8. Generalizability (external validity)

    We reviewed included studies to search for sampling frame, recruitment and retention, and overall description of included study participants to determine the generalizability of the findings [18].


    2.9. Summary measures

    Our a priori outcomes of interest were independent living, quality of life, falls, fractures, adverse events, mobility, balance, physical function and capacity, physical activity and sedentary behavior, fear of falling, and implementation factors: Feasibility, adherence, and behavior change techniques (BCT).


    2.10. BCTs

    We proposed to list BCTs used within each study. If study authors provided a published list of BCTs we included them in the overall description, otherwise, two authors (MCA, LF) independently reviewed each study and identified possible BCTs using the taxonomy established by Michie and colleagues [19]. We calculated Cohen's [20] Kappa statistic to estimate inter-rater reliability of identified BCTs used within the interventions.


    2.11. Synthesis of findings

    A priori we proposed to conduct a meta-analysis, if data were available and it was appropriate, following established guidelines (e.g., assess for statistical and clinical heterogeneity, determine use of random or fixed effects model based on available data, conduct sensitivity analyses, etc.). If it was not appropriate to conduct a quantitative synthesis, we planned to provide a narrative summary of the findings based on the population, intervention, and results. If possible, we proposed to conduct subgroup analyses for women/men and/or different types of delivery modes for interventions (e.g., telephone, online video).


    2.12. Managing bias and potential conflict of interest

    Throughout the review process, team members strived to reduce unconscious bias. We registered our protocol prior to starting, and followed standard systematic review guidelines with two reviewers who independently adjudicated potential publications at Levels 1 and 2, and assessed study risk of bias. If we were uncertain of a study design or intervention, we emailed the corresponding author for clarification. In addition, no author of an included study assessed its risk of bias. This was an unfunded study and authors stated no known conflicts of interest.


    3. Results


    3.1. Study selection

    We conducted a comprehensive systematic search for evidence across several databases including all years and languages. Figure 2 presents the flow diagram of citations reviewed at Levels 1 and 2, with reasons for excluding citations at Level 2.

    Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram.


    3.2. Study characteristics

    There were six studies [21,22,23,24,25,26] included in this review representing 277 participants, and all but one study [26] was conducted with older adults with hip fracture. Four [22,23,24,25] of the six studies were RCTs with two pre-post studies [21,26]. Studies were conducted in several different countries including Australia (n = 1) [24], Canada (n = 2) [23,26], Italy (n = 1) [22], Thailand (n = 1) [25] and USA (n = 1) [21]. Four of the studies used telephony as the delivery mode [22,23,24,25], one used a computer [21] and another used video-conferencing [26]. One study used telephone and face-to-face delivery of the intervention [25]. Table 1 provides a description of the included studies.


    3.3. Risk of bias

    We only included the four RCTs [22,23,24,25] in the assessment. They had predominantly low or unclear risk of bias across items. For determining the risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, we judged that the study by Di Monaco and colleagues (single phone call) [22] would not initiate a substantial change in behavior. In contrast, for the remaining three studies it was difficult to untangle if the lack of blinding would increase risk of bias because of the design of the studies and interventions. Figures 3A, B summarize risk of bias overall and for individual studies.


    3.4. Generalizability of findings

    Almost all of the studies (5/6) were conducted in older adults recovering from hip fracture. All participants were community-dwelling and did not have dementia or low cognition scores; most participants were older white women. Only three studies reported their sampling frame with recruitment rates ranging from 19-74% for all possible participants, and 38-94% of all eligible participants. Participant retention ranged from 71-100% (Table 2).


    3.5. Implementation factors and BCTs

    All interventions were completed in six months or less, but few studies reported a detailed description of the intervention, and its implementation. Only the two pre-post studies reported on participants' satisfaction. Only one study [23] listed the intervention BCTs. There was moderate to substantial agreement between the raters (ϰ = 0.57-1.0) [27] for adjudication of BCTs in the remaining five studies. Of the 93 behavior change techniques [19], 28 different techniques were identified within the included interventions (Table 3). The majority of BCTs identified belonged to the clusters goals and planning, repetition and substitution, and social support. Interventions were complex and the number of identified techniques used per study ranged from 4 to 17 (BCTs/study [4,15]). The most popular BCTs included in the interventions were behavioral practice (83.3%), credible source (83.3%), and unspecified social support (83.3%), followed by instruction on how to perform the behavior (66.7%).


    3.6. Synthesis of results

    There was heterogeneity in outcome variables within the included studies precluding combining data quantitatively, therefore we only conducted a narrative summary of the identified evidence. For example, physical activity was measured in two RCTs [24,25], however one study used self-report [25], and the other study used activity monitors [24], with different outcomes.

    Overall studies ascertained feasibility for remote delivery via telephone and computer/online based modes for the target population, and some studies observed significant differences between groups (favoring the intervention). For example, based on two studies [21,26], there were statistically significant pre-post differences noted for exercise self-efficacy [21], function [21,26], physical activity [21], and quality of life [21]. In the four RCTs [22,23,24,25] there were significant between group differences in two trials only for exercise self-efficacy [25], falls self-efficacy [24], physical activity [24,25], and quality of life [24] (Table 4).

    Table 1. Description of included interventions.
    First Author
    Year
    Country
    Fracture location
    Study design
    Methods
    Population
    N = group
    Age (mean, range)
    W:M
    Control Intervention Type, Dose and Duration Intervention Delivery
    Bedra [21]
    2015
    USA
    hip
    Feasibility study N = 10
    77 (9) y (65-88 y)
    6:4
    N/A Home Automated Tele-management (HAT) system: Requested participants complete individualized exercises daily
    30 days
    computer and telephony
    Di Monaco [22]
    2015
    Italy
    hip
    RCT N = 153
    (78 intervention-75 control)
    78 (7.2) y
    169:0
    Usual multidisciplinary hospital care Usual multidisciplinary hospital care, and one telephone call (median 18 days) post-discharge (median duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-43)
    6 months
    telephony
    Langford [23]
    2015
    Canada
    hip
    Pilot RCT N = 26
    (11 intervention-15 control)
    82 (61-97 y)
    19:11
    Usual multidisciplinary hospital care + education Usual multidisciplinary hospital care + education, and up to 5 telephone calls (at home)
    4 months
    telephony
    O'Halloran [24]
    2016
    Australia
    hip
    RCT N = 25
    (13 intervention-12 control)
    82 y +
    21:9
    Usual care Usual care and eight 30 minute weekly motivational interviewing sessions
    8 weeks
    telephony
    Suwanpasu [25]
    2014
    Thailand
    hip
    RCT N = 46
    (23 intervention-23 control)
    75 (8) y
    35:11
    Usual care and education Usual care, education and physical activity enhancing program: 4 phases including 5 sessions in the first 7 weeks of surgery using both face-to-face and telephone contact.
    6 weeks
    telephony and face-to-face
    Tousignant [26]
    2014
    Canada
    proximal humerus
    Pilot study N = 17
    65 (11) y
    15:2
    N/A Individualized treatment/exercise program of 11 sessions for 30 to 45 minutes delivered by a PT, plus home exercises
    8 weeks
    video-conferencing
    BCT: Behavior change techniques; IQR: Interquartile range; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; W:M: Number of women and men.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figures 3. A: Risk of bias overall; and B: For individual randomized controlled trials.

    Table 2. Study factors related to generalizability of the findings within the target population.
    Study fracture location Sampling frame Recruitment location
    Time since fracture at enrollment
    Other factors Recruitment and retention rates Description of participants who completed study
    Bedra [21]
    2015
    Hip fracture (surgical repair)
    Consecutive recruitment of community-dwelling older adults 65 years and older Orthopaedic clinics or physical therapy centers
    Mean (SD) 159 (143) d since fracture
    Dates for sampling frame not reported
    Cognition: Mini Mental Examination 27 (2) at baseline
    Recruitment: N = 14
    Rate not reported
    Retention: n = 10/14 (71%)
    N = 10
    Age: 77 (9) y^
    Education: 11(4) y
    Ethnicity: 9/10 (90%) white
    Sex: 6/10 (60%) women
    Di Monaco [22]
    2015
    Hip fracture (surgical repair)
    Consecutive recruitment of women 50 years and older admitted to hospital Physical medicine and rehabilitation hospital
    Recruited during hospital stay
    Sampling frame based on 17 months
    Cognition: Mini Mental Examination >25 points at baseline
    Recruitment: N = 169
    All participants: 169/228 (74%)
    Eligible participants: 169/179 (94%)
    Retention: 153/169 (90%)
    N = 153
    Age: 79 y*
    Education: Not reported
    Ethnicity: White
    Sex: Women
    Langford [23]
    2015
    Hip fracture
    (surgical repair)
    Consecutive recruitment of community-dwelling older adults 60 years and older Acute orthopaedic hospital ward
    Recruited during hospital stay
    Sampling frame based on 6 months
    Cognition: No physician diagnosis of dementia
    Recruitment: N = 30
    All participants: 30/159 (19%)
    Eligible participants: 30/72 (42%)
    Retention: 27/30 (90%)
    N = 26
    Age: 81.5 y*
    Education: Not reported
    Ethnicity: Not reported
    Sex: 15 women, 11 men
    O'Halloran [24]
    2016
    Hip fracture (surgical repair)
    Recruitment of community-dwelling older adults 65 years and older Four community rehabilitation sites (either home or center-based therapy)
    Recruited within 6 months after completion of rehabilitation
    Dates for sampling frame not reported
    Cognition: Excluded if had more than two errors on screening with SPMSQ
    Recruitment: N = 30
    All participants: 30/147 (20%)
    Eligible participants: 30/79 (38%)
    Retention: 25/30 (83%)
    N = 25
    Age: 82.7 y*
    Education: Not reported
    Ethnicity: Not reported
    Sex: 21 women, 4 men
    Suwanpasu [25]
    2014
    Hip fracture (surgical repair)
    Recruitment of older adults 60 years and older Hospital ward
    Recruited during hospital stay
    Study dates 14 months
    Cognition: 17.28/19* Chula Mental Test
    Recruitment: N = 43
    Rate not reported
    Retention: 43/43 (100%)
    N = 46
    Age: 75.2 (8.4)^ y
    Education: 14/43 completed high school higher education
    Ethnicity: Asian
    Sex: 25 women, 18 men
    Tousignant [26]
    2014
    Proximal humerus fracture (no surgery)
    Recruitment of adults proximal humerus fracture Recruited from hospital orthopaedic department Dates for sampling frame not reported
    Cognition: Not reported
    Recruitment: N = 21
    Rate not reported
    Retention: 17/21 (81%)
    N = 17
    Age: 65 (11)^ y
    Education: 13 (4) y
    Ethnicity: not reported
    Sex: 15 women, 2 men
    ^age mean (SD); *average of both groups; SPMSQ: Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3. Identified BCTs included for interventions.
    Identified behavior change techniques grouped in clusters k out of 6 studies
    1 Goals and planning
    1.1. Goal setting (behavior) 2
    1.2. Problem solving 1
    1.3. Goal setting (outcome) 2
    1.4. Action planning 1
    1.5. Review of behavioral goal 1
    1.6. Discrepancy between current behavior and goal 1
    2 Feedback and monitoring
    2.1. Monitoring of behavior by others without feedback 1
    2.2. Feedback on behavior 3
    2.3. Self-monitoring of behavior 2
    2.4. Self-monitoring of outcome(s) of behavior 1
    3 Social support
    3.1. Social support (unspecified) 5
    3.2. Social support (practical) 1
    3.3. Social support (emotional) 1
    4 Shaping knowledge
    4.1. Instruction on how to perform the behavior 4
    4.2. Information about antecedents 1
    5 Natural consequences
    5.2. Salience of consequences 3
    5.3. Information about social and environmental consequences 1
    6 Comparison of behavior
    6.1. Demonstration of the behavior 3
    6.2. Social comparison 1
    7 Associations
    7.1. Prompts/Cues 1
    7.5. Remove aversive stimuli 1
    8 Repetition and substitution
    8.1. Behavioral practice/rehearsal 5
    8.7. Graded tasks 2
    9 Comparison of outcomes
    9.1. Credible source 5
    9.2. Pros and cons 1
    11 Regulation
    11.1. Pharmacological support 1
    11.2. Reduce negative emotions 1
    12 Antecedents
    12.1. Restructuring of physical environment 1
    Note: k, number of studies to use BCT; Italic areas refer to the clusters of the taxonomy [19].
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4. Summary of outcomes from the included studies. Outcomes are presented as differences between groups, except for studies by Bedra and Finklestein 2015 [21] where pre-post intervention results are presented, and Tousignant et al., 2017, where results are presented as difference for pre-post intervention [26]. Square brackets indicate 95% Confidence Intervals, and round brackets indicate standard deviation.
    First Author
    Year
    Country
    Independent living Quality of life Falls, fractures or adverse events Mobility or Physical function Physical activity Fear of falling or Self-efficacy Adherence Feasibility Satisfaction
    Bedra [21]
    2015
    USA
    Modified Barthel Index SF-36 Lower Extremity Functional Scale YPAS (hr/wk) Exercise self-efficacy Average exercise frequency/day Satisfaction questionnaire
    95(6); 99(2)
    p = 0.10
    Physical Functioning
    p = 0.009; Social Functioning
    p = 0.01; No significant between time differences for other sub-components
    55 (16); 63 (13)
    p = 0.03
    24 (14); 31(14)
    p = 0.04
    6 (3); 9 (1)
    p = 0.01
    87-97% 27 (4); 31 (0.5)
    p = 0.04
    Di Monaco [22]
    2015
    Italy
    Barthel Index Proportion of people who fell Recommendations
    No differences between groups at 6 months No differences between groups at 6 months: Intervention group RR 1.06 [0.48, 2.34] 3 intervention and 1 control group participant fractured At 6 months mean advice followed (by number of items) was intervention 75 (23)% compared with 71 (23)% control group p = 0.29
    Langford [23]
    2015
    Canada
    EQ5D-5L Prospective falls diaries Gait speed (m/s) Short-form Falls Efficacy Scale—International
    No difference between groups One participant in each group fell twice No difference between groups No difference between groups
    O'Halloran [24]
    2016
    Australia
    Independent living Assessment of Quality of Life Instrument 8-D de Morton Mobility Index activPAL activity monitor mFES ASCQ Number of sessions received
    No differences between groups Favored intervention group
    Psychometric p = 0.015;
    Psychosocial
    p = 0.007;
    Mental health p = 0.039;
    Coping
    p = 0.005;
    Self-worth
    p = 0.023
    No differences between groups Favored intervention group 1237 [12, 2463]Steps/day
    p = 0.048
    14.7 [0.6, 28.8]mins/day
    p = 0.042
    mFES 1.1 [0.3, 1.9]
    p = 0.007

    ASCQ 1.6 [0.3, 2.9]
    p = 0.015
    12/13 received 8 sessions and 1 participant had 7 sessions.
    Average session duration = 30 min
    no significant between time differences for other sub-components
    Suwanpasu [25]
    2014
    Thailand
    IPAQ Self-efficacy
    Favored intervention group
    961.37MET/min/wk
    p < 0.01
    Favored intervention group
    8.35 score
    p = 0.02
    Tousignant [26]
    2014
    Canada
    Upper limb function DASH Health Care Satisfaction questionnaire
    42.1 (11.4)
    p < 0.001
    Global score
    82 (7)
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4. Discussion

    Globally, there is a large and growing population of adults and older adults who sustain musculoskeletal trauma each year [1]. Rehabilitation and resumption of usual activity is imperative for recovery and avoidance of further deterioration. Although delivering health care remotely using technology has increased considerably in the past two decades [28], we highlight a gap in knowledge for musculoskeletal trauma rehabilitation. In this systematic review, we only identified six studies that met the inclusion criteria. The existing evidence is based predominantly on telephony as the delivery mode, with limited generalizability to predominantly older community-dwelling women. An encouraging observation was the internal validity of RCTs, and use of behavior change theory and techniques within some studies. However, due to limited evidence and the heterogeneity of the outcome measures, we cannot make recommendations, at present.

    A key take home message for this review is the apparent gap in evidence for telerehabilitation as a delivery mode after musculoskeletal trauma. This is in contrast to other clinical areas, such as stroke [10,29,30], cardiopulmonary [31,32,33], joint replacement [34,35], and multiple sclerosis [36,37]. Despite evidence on telerehabilitation for adults with chronic orthopaedic conditions [12], it is important to discern “what works for whom and under what circumstances” [38]: Implementation factors such as delivery mode for the intended population is an important factor for delivery, uptake and long term sustainability of an intervention. But, it is not entirely clear why there are fewer published studies in this area, but it may be related to the sudden and unexpected nature of traumatic events, and or the diversity of the population at risk [39]. Another consideration is that post-discharge pathways for routine rehabilitation may not clearly be defined for adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma [40]. Alternatively, hip fracture, for example, occurs later in life (the average age of participants in the included studies ranged from 75-82 years), and there may be a (mis) perception that online resources pose challenges [41]. However, older adults are a growing segment of the population using online resources: Approximately two-thirds of older adults are online, and many have internet access at home [42]. Despite barriers to remote care, e.g. cost of internet connection, security of online clinical discussions etc., access to online resources could support families and caregivers. For example, Nahm and colleagues developed a caregivers' online resource centre and discussion boards for hip fracture recovery [43].

    There was limited support for some telerehabilitation interventions to increase physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy in older adults after hip fracture and proximal humerus fracture. However promising, these results should be viewed with caution, especially as the evidence was limited to mostly older community-dwelling women without significant cognitive impairment who have access to communication tools. Nonetheless, the collective evidence highlights feasibility of using remote delivery of care (mostly via telephone) after musculoskeletal trauma. In addition, the review highlights the use of an in-person clinical connection to build initial rapport prior to providing care remotely (e.g., in hospital, or attending rehabilitation or follow-up orthopaedic appointments) as part of the recruitment strategy. More detailed reporting on the implementation of telerehabilitation, such as using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist [44] is one way to encourage translation of important key ingredients for the successful delivery and uptake of an intervention to support future replication into practice.

    A strength of some of the interventions was the use of behavior change theory and theory-based BCTs to support delivery and update of the interventions. Overall, we noted studies were complex and used many BCT (i.e., behavioral practice, credible source, social support). These “active ingredients” may have been important implementation factors. A recent systematic review of internet interventions for changing behavior noted that studies using more BCTs observed larger effect sizes [45]. However, it remains to be determined what BCTs (or combination of) were effective, and to determine the effect of delivery modes that use video, real-time observation and remote monitoring (via wearable sensors) for this population.

    We acknowledge strengths and limitations with the systematic review process, and the evidence identified. Within the review process, we strived to be as comprehensive as possible and included studies from all years and in all languages. We used established guidelines to conduct the review and included three novel elements: BCTs, description of the generalizability of the evidence, and other implementation factors. However, the interventions and outcomes were too heterogeneous precluding meta-analyses. We are not able to draw any conclusions as there was limited evidence (based only on two RCTs using different types of interventions) that care delivered remotely may support an increase in participants' physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy. This review signals the need for more interventions to test the effectiveness of telerehabilitation following musculoskeletal trauma. In particular, data are lacking for middle-aged adults, men, and across ethnicities, languages, cognitive abilities, and the socioeconomic and health literacy spectrum.

    In conclusion, based on this systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature, we identify a gap in knowledge for telerehabilitation for adults at midlife and older who experience musculoskeletal trauma. The existing evidence is a robust base from which to build clinical knowledge and develop, test and implement innovations. Future directions should consider using behavior change theory and behavior change techniques, and include detailed information for replication. Taken together, this review indicates the need for more studies to test telerehabilitation following musculoskeletal trauma.


    Acknowledgements

    We acknowledge support for A/Professor Ashe from the Canada Research Chairs program. Dr. Ekegren is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1106633). Dr. Chudyk's postdoctoral fellowship is supported by the Manitoba SPOR Primary and Integrated Healthcare Innovation Network.


    Funding

    This study was unfunded, but we acknowledge the support of the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility.

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.


    [1] Mock C, Cherian MN (2008) The global burden of musculoskeletal injuries: Challenges and solutions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466: 2306–2316. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0416-z
    [2] Wu D, Zhu X, Zhang S (2018) Effect of home-based rehabilitation for hip fracture: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Rehabil Med 50: 481–486. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2328
    [3] Hirdes JP, Fries BE, Morris JN, et al. (2004) Home care quality indicators (HCQIs) based on the MDS-HC. Gerontologist 44: 665–679. doi: 10.1093/geront/44.5.665
    [4] Armstrong JJ, Sims-Gould J, Stolee P (2016) Allocation of Rehabilitation Services for Older Adults in the Ontario Home Care System. Physiother Can 68: 346–354. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2014-66
    [5] Tran D, Davis A, Mcgillis HL, et al. (2012) Comparing Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Rehabilitation Professionals among Hospital and Home Care Employers. Physiother Can 64: 31–41. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2010-43
    [6] Roots RK, Brown H, Bainbridge L, et al. (2014) Rural rehabilitation practice: Perspectives of occupational therapists and physical therapists in British Columbia, Canada. Rural Remote Health 14: 2506.
    [7] Russell TG (2007) Physical rehabilitation using telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 13: 217–220. doi: 10.1258/135763307781458886
    [8] Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U (2011) Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart failure: A meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 17: 7–14. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.100113
    [9] Laver KE, Schoene D, Crotty M, et al. (2013) Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12: CD010255.
    [10] Chen J, Jin W, Zhang XX, et al. (2015) Telerehabilitation Approaches for Stroke Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 24: 2660–2668. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.014
    [11] Reeder B, Chung J, Stevens-Lapsley J (2016) Current Telerehabilitation Research With Older Adults at Home: An Integrative Review. J Gerontol Nurs 42: 15–20.
    [12] Cottrell MA, Galea OA, O'Leary SP, et al. (2017) Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 31: 625–638. doi: 10.1177/0269215516645148
    [13] Le MY, Collins G, Bhandari M, et al. (2015) Outcomes After Hip Fracture Surgery Compared With Elective Total Hip Replacement. JAMA 314: 1159–1166. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10842
    [14] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    [15] Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
    [16] Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2017) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies, In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS. Editors, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 520 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
    [17] Villamar MF, Contreras VS, Kuntz RE, et al. (2013) The reporting of blinding in physical medicine and rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 45: 6–13. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1071
    [18] Avellar SA, Thomas J, Kleinman R, et al. (2016) External Validity: The Next Step for Systematic Reviews? Eval Rev 41: 283–325.
    [19] Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, et al. (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 46: 81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
    [20] Cohen J (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Eduational Psychol Meas 20: 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
    [21] Bedra M, Finkelstein J (2015) Feasibility of post-acute hip fracture telerehabilitation in older adults. Stud Health Technol Inf 210: 469–473.
    [22] Di MM, De ET, Gardin L, et al. (2015) A single postdischarge telephone call by an occupational therapist does not reduce the risk of falling in women after hip fracture: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 51: 15–22.
    [23] Langford DP, Fleig L, Brown KC, et al. (2015) Back to the future-feasibility of recruitment and retention to patient education and telephone follow-up after hip fracture: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient Prefer Adherence 9: 1343–1351.
    [24] O'Halloran PD, Shields N, Blackstock F, et al. (2016) Motivational interviewing increases physical activity and self-efficacy in people living in the community after hip fracture: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 30: 1108–1119. doi: 10.1177/0269215515617814
    [25] Suwanpasu S, Aungsuroch Y, Jitapanya C (2014) Post-surgical physical activity enhancing program for elderly patients after hip fracture: A randomized controlled trial. Asian Biomed 8: 525–532. doi: 10.5372/1905-7415.0804.323
    [26] Tousignant M, Giguere AM, Morin M, et al. (2014) In-home telerehabilitation for proximal humerus fractures: A pilot study. Int J Telerehabil 6: 31–37.
    [27] Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310
    [28] Yang YT, Iqbal U, Ching JH, et al. (2015) Trends in the growth of literature of telemedicine: A bibliometric analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 122: 471–479. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.09.008
    [29] Johansson T, Wild C (2011) Telerehabilitation in stroke care-a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 17: 1–6. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.100105
    [30] Veras M, Kairy D, Rogante M, et al. (2017) Scoping review of outcome measures used in telerehabilitation and virtual reality for post-stroke rehabilitation. J Telemed Telecare 23: 567–587. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16656235
    [31] Chan C, Yamabayashi C, Syed N, et al. (2016) Exercise Telemonitoring and Telerehabilitation Compared with Traditional Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physiother Can 68: 242–251. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2015-33
    [32] Frederix I, Vanhees L, Dendale P, et al. (2015) A review of telerehabilitation for cardiac patients. J Telemed Telecare 21: 45–53. doi: 10.1177/1357633X14562732
    [33] Hwang R, Bruning J, Morris N, et al. (2015) A Systematic Review of the Effects of Telerehabilitation in Patients With Cardiopulmonary Diseases. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 35: 380–389. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000121
    [34] Jiang S, Xiang J, Gao X, et al. (2018) The comparison of telerehabilitation and face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 24: 257–262. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16686748
    [35] Shukla H, Nair SR, Thakker D (2017) Role of telerehabilitation in patients following total knee arthroplasty: Evidence from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 23: 339–346. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16628996
    [36] Amatya B, Galea MP, Kesselring J, et al. (2015) Effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions in persons with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord 4: 358–369. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.06.011
    [37] Khan F, Amatya B, Kesselring J, et al. (2015) Telerehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis. A Cochrane review. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 51: 311–325.
    [38] Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, et al. (2012) Large-system transformation in health care: A realist review. Milbank Q 90: 421–456. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00670.x
    [39] Ranhoff AH, Holvik K, Martinsen MI, et al. (2010) Older hip fracture patients: three groups with different needs. BMC Geriatr 10: 65. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-10-65
    [40] Irwin J, Carter A (2013) Major trauma patients with musculoskeletal injuries: Rehabilitation pathway inadequacies. Int J Ther Rehabil 20: 376–377. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2013.20.8.376
    [41] Greenwald P, Stern ME, Clark S, et al. (2018) Older adults and technology: In telehealth, they may not be who you think they are. Int J Emerg Med 11: 2. doi: 10.1186/s12245-017-0162-7
    [42] Pew Internet and American Life Project, Older adults and the internet, 2004. Available via Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/tech-adoption-climbs-among-older-adults/. Accessed 6 June 2018.
    [43] Nahm ES, Resnick B, Plummer L, et al. (2013) Use of discussion boards in an online hip fracture resource center for caregivers. Orthop Nurs 32: 89–95. doi: 10.1097/NOR.0b013e318289fa22
    [44] Yamato T, Maher C, Saragiotto B, et al. (2016) Improving completeness and transparency of reporting in clinical trials using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist will benefit the physiotherapy profession. J Man Manip Ther 24: 183–184. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2016.1210343
    [45] Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, et al. (2010) Using the internet to promote health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Int Res 12: e4.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Patrocinio Ariza-Vega, Herminia Castillo-Pérez, Mariana Ortiz-Piña, Lena Ziden, Jerónimo Palomino-Vidal, Maureen C Ashe, The Journey of Recovery: Caregivers’ Perspectives From a Hip Fracture Telerehabilitation Clinical Trial, 2021, 101, 0031-9023, 10.1093/ptj/pzaa220
    2. Patrocinio Ariza-Vega, Rafael Prieto-Moreno, Herminia Castillo-Pérez, Virginia Martínez-Ruiz, Dulce Romero-Ayuso, Maureen C. Ashe, Family Caregivers’ Experiences with Tele-Rehabilitation for Older Adults with Hip Fracture, 2021, 10, 2077-0383, 5850, 10.3390/jcm10245850
    3. Mariana Ortiz-Piña, Pablo Molina-Garcia, Pedro Femia, Maureen C. Ashe, Lydia Martín-Martín, Susana Salazar-Graván, Zeus Salas-Fariña, Rafael Prieto-Moreno, Yolanda Castellote-Caballero, Fernando Estevez-Lopez, Patrocinio Ariza-Vega, Effects of Tele-Rehabilitation Compared with Home-Based in-Person Rehabilitation for Older Adult’s Function after Hip Fracture, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 5493, 10.3390/ijerph18105493
    4. CJ Gamble, JCM van Haastregt, EF van Dam van Isselt, SMG Zwakhalen, JMGA Schols, Effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review, 2023, 0269-2155, 10.1177/02692155231217411
    5. Alison Sim, Amy Gray McNeilage, Ali Gholamrezaei, Trudy Rebbeck, Claire Ashton-James, Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: a scoping review of systematic reviews, 2024, 14, 2044-6055, e085778, 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085778
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5232) PDF downloads(1141) Cited by(5)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog