Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Stroke is a common cause of disability in adults. After a stroke, it is common for the individual to have difficulty managing everyday activities such as walking, showering, dressing and participating in community activities. Many people need rehabilitation after stroke; this is usually provided by healthcare professionals in a hospital or clinic setting. Recent studies have investigated whether it is possible to use technologies such as the telephone or the Internet to help people communicate with healthcare professionals without having to leave their home. This approach, which is called telerehabilitation, may be a more convenient and less expensive way of providing rehabilitation.

This review aimed to gather evidence for the use of telerehabilitation after stroke. We identified 10 studies involving 933 people after stroke. The studies used a wide range of treatments, including therapy programmes designed to improve arm function and ability to walk and programmes designed to provide counselling and support for people upon leaving hospital after stroke. As the studies were very different, it was inappropriate to combine results to determine overall effect. Therefore, at this point, not enough research has been done to show whether telerehabilitation is an effective way to provide rehabilitation. Also, information is lacking as to the cost-effectiveness of providing therapy using telerehabilitation. Further trials are urgently required.

Authors' conclusions: 

We found insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of telerehabilitation after stroke. Moreover, we were unable to find any randomised trials that included an evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Which intervention approaches are most appropriately adapted to a telerehabilitation approach remain unclear, as does the best way to utilise this approach.

Read the full abstract...

Telerehabilitation is an alternative way of delivering rehabilitation services. Information and communication technologies are used to facilitate communication between the healthcare professional and the patient in a remote location. The use of telerehabilitation is becoming more viable as the speed and sophistication of communication technologies improve. However, it is currently unclear how effective this model of delivery is relative to rehabilitation delivered face-to-face.


To determine whether the use of telerehabilitation leads to improved ability to perform activities of daily living amongst stroke survivors when compared with (1) in-person rehabilitation (when the clinician and the patient are at the same physical location and rehabilitation is provided face-to-face); or (2) no rehabilitation. Secondary objectives were to determine whether use of telerehabilitation leads to greater independence in self care and domestic life and improved mobility, health-related quality of life, upper limb function, cognitive function or functional communication when compared with in-person rehabilitation and no rehabilitation. Additionally, we aimed to report on the presence of adverse events, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and levels of user satisfaction associated with telerehabilitation interventions.

Search strategy: 

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (November 2012), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Trials Register (November 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2012), EMBASE (1980 to November 2012) and eight additional databases. We searched trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists.

Selection criteria: 

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of telerehabilitation in stroke. We included studies that compared telerehabilitation with in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. In addition, we synthesised and described the results of RCTs that compared two different methods of delivering telerehabilitation services without an alternative group. We included rehabilitation programmes that used a combination of telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation provided that the greater proportion of intervention was provided via telerehabilitation.

Data collection and analysis: 

Two review authors independently identified trials on the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated any disagreements. The review authors contacted investigators to ask for missing information.

Main results: 

We included in the review 10 trials involving a total of 933 participants. The studies were generally small, and reporting quality was often inadequate, particularly in relation to blinding of outcome assessors and concealment of allocation. Selective outcome reporting was apparent in several studies. Study interventions and comparisons varied, meaning that in most cases, it was inappropriate to pool studies. Intervention approaches included upper limb training, lower limb and mobility retraining, case management and caregiver support. Most studies were conducted with people in the chronic phase following stroke. Primary outcome: no statistically significant results for independence in activities of daily living (based on two studies with 661 participants) were noted when a case management intervention was evaluated. Secondary outcomes: no statistically significant results for upper limb function (based on two studies with 46 participants) were observed when a computer programme was used to remotely retrain upper limb function. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the effects of the intervention on mobility, health-related quality of life or participant satisfaction with the intervention. No studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation. No studies reported on the occurrence of adverse events within the studies.