Trial reportPLoS medicine2020
Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of interventions using activity trackers and smartphone applications for increasing physical activity in older adults with health conditions: a systematic review with meta-analysis.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2026Pooled it
- Physical Therapist Involved Physical Activity Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2026Pooled it
- Interventions Using Wearable Activity Trackers to Improve Patient Physical Activity and Other Outcomes in Adults Who Are Hospitalized: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- The effectiveness of physical activity interventions using activity trackers during or after inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Pooled it
- The Telephysiotherapy for Older People (TOP-UP) program for improving mobility in people receiving aged care: a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Trial
- Haptic Nudges Increase Affected Upper Limb Movement During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: Multiple-Period Randomized Crossover Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Trial
- Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Health gains from rehabilitation programs implemented by nurses for older people with impaired mobility and self-care deficit: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- RoBuster-Corpus Annotated With Risk of Bias Text Spans in Randomized Controlled Trials in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation: Corpus Development and Annotation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Implementation of wearable activity trackers in hospital rehabilitation: a feasibility study tailored to local settings.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring the Influence of a Novel App for Training and Evaluating Walking Aid Skills in Walking Aid Users: Protocol for a Pragmatic Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Advanced Technology in a Real-World Rehabilitation Setting: Longitudinal Observational Study on Clinician Adoption and Implementation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Digital Apps to Improve Mobility in Adults with Neurological Conditions: A Health App-Focused Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Promotion of Physical Activity by Health Professionals (PROMOTE-PA): protocol for effectiveness outcomes in a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Article
- Enhanced Rehabilitation Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Gait Training with EksoNR Lower Extremity Exoskeleton in 19 Stroke Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Observational
- Implementing digital devices to increase mobility training for people receiving inpatient rehabilitation: protocol for a feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Physiotherapy-led telehealth and exercise intervention to improve mobility in older people receiving aged care services (TOP UP): protocol for a randomised controlled type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2023Article
- Digital Facilitation to Support Patient Access to Web-Based Primary Care Services: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Brief physical activity counselling by physiotherapists (BEHAVIOUR): protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomised controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Team VA Video Connect (VVC) to optimize mobility and physical activity in post-hospital discharge older veterans: baseline assessment.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigitally 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
findingsWe 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.
conclusionsIn 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 registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.