ArticleNeuroRehabilitation2024
Telerehabilitation from the perspective of patients and healthcare providers: A 3-year follow-up study.
Article in NeuroRehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paediatric traumatic brain injury: unique population and unique challenges.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Changes in heart failure healthcare in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey.BJGP open · 2025Article
- The Reliability and Validity of an Instrumented Device for Tracking the Shoulder Range of Motion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of motion capture camera-supported telerehabilitation gamification on upper extremity functions and quality of life in stroke and cerebral palsy patients.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Attitudes of People With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders Towards Telerehabilitation: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is important to investigate satisfaction and perception of the effectiveness of telerehabilitation and its outcomes post-COVID-19 pandemic.
objectiveEvaluate the patients' and healthcare providers' level of satisfaction with telerehabilitation and perception of its efficacy and describe how it became an established resource in a network of rehabilitation hospitals post-pandemic.
methodsThe online survey about their experience with telerehabilitation was completed by 2,755 patients (322 new patients and 2,433 existing patients), and 668 providers from 26 different specialties.
resultsMost patients and providers rated remote care as effective. There were no differences in scores between existing patients and new patients and the majority reported that their expectations were met. Most patients described their remote consults as good as or better than in-person, while providers mostly preferred in-person sessions. Despite most modalities having returned to in-person practice, there is still a significant percentage of telerehabilitation consults.
conclusionThree years after the start of the pandemic, despite a return to in-person treatment, we see a telerehabilitation culture being constructed as a resource to supplement the rehabilitation process, with potential for establishing this model in a network of rehabilitation hospitals.
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.