ArticleDialogues in health2022
Telerehabilitation acceptance among patients during Circuit Breaker period: A retrospective study.
Article in Dialogues in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid telerehabilitation approach for patellofemoral pain management in South African runners: a feasibility case series.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Patient and Provider Experiences With Compassionate Care in Virtual Physiatry: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telerehabilitation (TR) was viewed as an ideal alternative to minimize infection risks with in-person rehabilitation. However, TR acceptability remains unclear as it is an unfamiliar mode of interaction for most patients. We aim to retrospectively: (i) review the uptake rate of TR among patients, and (ii) explore their perceived barriers and facilitators of the service. Design: A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted among eligible patients who were offered TR. Research data was extracted from medical records. Additionally, an anonymous patient satisfaction survey was conducted among the successfully enrolled patients, and the feedback was extracted from the form.gov.sg server. Results: 24·2% of the 314 eligible patients were successfully enrolled into TR. Preference for in-person rehabilitation was the top reason cited for declining the service. Among the 157 patients who declined the service, 38·2% of them preferred in-person rehabilitation over TR. Conclusions: A low uptake of TR services was demonstrated, with preference for in-person rehabilitation being the majority cited reason for decline. Reconciling the differences in patients' perceptions between in-person rehabilitation and TR may improve uptake rates.
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.