Nicolas Benoit, Leblong Emilie, Fraudet Bastien, Gallien Philippe, Piette Patrice
Pôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.
Digit Health. 2024 Nov 3;10:20552076241294110. doi: 10.1177/20552076241294110. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
Telerehabilitation (TR), a branch of telemedicine, provides remote therapeutic rehabilitation through telecommunication. Driven by technological advances and benefits like remote monitoring and patient education, it has grown since 1998. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted its importance in maintaining healthcare access.
What is the efficacy of TR compared to in-person rehabilitation? Are the assessment tools effective? Is TR well-accepted, and are costs reduced?
A bibliographic search on Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar focused on systematic reviews (SRs) from 2014 to Mai 2024, comparing TR or home-based rehabilitation with in person treatments for various conditions. Independent reviewers conducted initial screenings, resolving disagreements by a third reviewer. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to evaluate the quality of review. The data was synthesised narratively.
The search identified 665 SRs. After selection, 228 SR were included. TR models include synchronous (real-time video interactions), asynchronous (independent sessions through digital platforms) and mixed methods. Regardless of the medical fields, the conclusions of the SRs consistently point to the equivalence of TR compared to in-person rehabilitation. Remote evaluations via digital tools were reliable and valid for various assessments. TR is cost effectiveness and well accepted.
TR is a viable alternative or complement to traditional rehabilitation, offering enhanced accessibility, reduced costs and improved results. Barriers include technical issues, training and concerns about lack of physical contact. Mixed methods could address these challenges.
远程康复是远程医疗的一个分支，通过电信提供远程治疗性康复服务。在远程监测和患者教育等技术进步和益处的推动下，自1998年以来它不断发展。2019冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行凸显了其在维持医疗服务可及性方面的重要性。
与面对面康复相比，远程康复的疗效如何？评估工具是否有效？远程康复是否被广泛接受，成本是否降低？
在Medline、Cochrane和谷歌学术上进行文献检索，重点关注2014年至2024年5月的系统评价（SRs），比较远程康复或居家康复与针对各种病症的面对面治疗。独立评审员进行初步筛选，由第三位评审员解决分歧。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所批判性评价清单来评估综述的质量。数据采用叙述性综合分析。
检索到665篇系统评价。筛选后，纳入228篇系统评价。远程康复模式包括同步（实时视频互动）、异步（通过数字平台进行独立课程）和混合方法。无论医学领域如何，系统评价的结论一致表明，与面对面康复相比，远程康复具有等效性。通过数字工具进行的远程评估对于各种评估都是可靠且有效的。远程康复具有成本效益且被广泛接受。
远程康复是传统康复的可行替代方案或补充，具有更高的可及性、更低的成本和更好的效果。障碍包括技术问题、培训以及对缺乏身体接触的担忧。混合方法可以应对这些挑战。
