Gillespie Dan, MacLellan Crystal, Ferguson-Pell Martin, Taeger Andrea, Manns Patricia J
Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Covenant Health: St. Mary's Hospital, Camrose, Alberta, Canada.
Physiother Can. 2021 Summer;73(3):276-285. doi: 10.3138/ptc-2019-0095.
Stroke survivors living in rural and remote communities experience challenges in accessing specialized rehabilitation services. Access to balance assessment after stroke is an essential aspect of the physiotherapy assessment. Telerehabilitation (TRH) can eliminate access disparities; however, adoption into practice has been limited. Our primary objective was to examine agreement between Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores obtained through TRH and those obtained through traditional in-person assessment of community-dwelling individuals with stroke. Two raters administered the BBS to 20 community-dwelling individuals with stroke, using both TRH and traditional in-person approaches. The order of assessments and rater assignment was randomized. Interrater reliability between the methods was assessed using Krippendorff's reliability estimate. A survey was then administered to examine the participants' perceptions of the two means of assessment. Excellent interrater agreement was found between TRH and in-person assessment ( = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99), and responses regarding patients' perceived hearing and understanding of instructions as well as perceived safety were comparable. In addition, the vast majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would use TRH for future physiotherapy sessions. The results of this study support administration of the BBS using TRH technology; this could improve access to balance assessment for stroke survivors in rural and remote communities.
生活在农村和偏远社区的中风幸存者在获得专业康复服务方面面临挑战。中风后进行平衡评估是物理治疗评估的一个重要方面。远程康复(TRH)可以消除获得服务的差距;然而,其在实际应用中的推广一直有限。我们的主要目标是检验通过TRH获得的伯格平衡量表(BBS)分数与通过对社区中风患者进行传统面对面评估获得的分数之间的一致性。两名评估人员使用TRH和传统面对面方法,对20名社区中风患者进行了BBS评估。评估顺序和评估人员分配是随机的。使用克里彭多夫可靠性估计来评估两种方法之间的评估者间信度。然后进行了一项调查,以了解参与者对这两种评估方式的看法。结果发现,TRH与面对面评估之间存在极好的评估者间一致性(=0.97;95%置信区间:0.96,0.99),并且关于患者对指令的听觉和理解以及感知到的安全性的回答具有可比性。此外,绝大多数参与者同意或强烈同意他们会在未来的物理治疗中使用TRH。这项研究的结果支持使用TRH技术进行BBS评估;这可以改善农村和偏远社区中风幸存者获得平衡评估的机会。