Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36249480›Full record

ArticleDigital health

A scoping review of feasibility, cost, access to rehabilitation services and implementation of telerehabilitation: Implications for low- and middle-income countries.

Eugene Nizeyimana, Conran Joseph, Nicola Plastow, Gouwa Dawood, Quinette A Louw

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eugene NizeyimanaDivision of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0859-5013
Conran JosephDivision of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Nicola PlastowDivision of Occupational Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Gouwa DawoodDivision of Speech, Language and Hearing Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Quinette A LouwDivision of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To scope all published information reporting on the feasibility, cost, access to rehabilitation services, implementation processes including barriers and facilitators of telerehabilitation (TR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). Methods: A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane library, EBSCOhost (Academic search premier, Africa-wide information, CINAHL, Eric, MEDLINE, Health sources - Nursing/Academic edition), Africa online, as well as ProQuest databases were conducted. To maximise the coverage of the literature, the reference lists of included articles identified through the search were also screened. The analysis included both descriptive summary and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included. TR was reported to be feasible, cost-saving and improved access to rehabilitation services in both HICs and LMICs settings. Asynchronous methods using different mobile apps (Skype, WhatsApp, Google meet, Facebook messenger, Viber, Face time and Emails) were the most common mode of TR delivery. Barriers to the implementation were identified and categorised in terms of human, organisational, technical and clinical practice related factors. Facilitators for health professionals and patients/caregivers' dyads were also identified. Conclusion: TR could be considered a feasible service delivery mode in both HICs and LMICs. However, the mitigation of barriers such as lack of knowledge and technical skills among TR providers and service users, lack of secure platform dedicated for TR, lack of resources and connectivity issues which are particularly prevalent in LMICs will be important to optimise the benefits of TR.

Indexed as

Accessbarrierscostfacilitatorsfeasibilityimpactrehabilitationtelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID36249480
PMCPMC9557862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.