Objectives: To summarize the impact of various telerehabilitation interventions on motor function, balance, gait, activities of daily living (ADLs), and quality of life (QoL) among patients with stroke and to determine the existing telerehabilitation interventions for delivering physiotherapy sessions in clinical practice. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched to identify relevant quantitative systematic reviews (SRs). Due to substantial heterogeneity, the data were analysed narratively. Results: A total of 28 systematic reviews (n = 245 primary studies) were included that examined various telerehabilitation interventions after stroke. Motor function was the most studied outcome domain across the reviews (20 SRs), followed by ADL (18 SRs), and balance (14 SRs) domains. For primary outcomes, our findings highlight moderate- to high-quality evidence showing either a significant effect or no significant difference between telerehabilitation and other interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion regarding feasibility outcomes, including participant satisfaction, adherence to treatment, and cost. Most reviews under this umbrella included patients with stroke in the subacute or chronic phase (12 SRs). Simple and complex telerehabilitation interventions such as telephone calls, videoconferencing, smartphone- or tablet-based mobile health applications, messaging, virtual reality, robot-assisted devices, and 3D animation videos, either alone or in combination with other interventions, were included across reviews. Conclusions: Various telerehabilitation interventions have shown either a significant effect or no significant difference compared to other interventions in improving upper and lower limb motor function, balance, gait, ADLs, and QoL, regardless of whether simple or complex approaches were used. Further research is needed to support the delivery of rehabilitation services through telerehabilitation intervention following a stroke.

Objective: To present the extent of evidence concerning the effectiveness of extended reality telerehabilitation and patients’ experiences of using different types of virtual reality exercises at home. Methods: We included studies on virtual reality and augmented reality telerehabilitation published in English. Systematic searches were undertaken in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PEDro, with no date limitations. We included only RCTs and qualitative studies exploring patients’ experiences. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for quantitative papers and the CASP scale for qualitative studies. All results are presented narratively. Results: Thirteen studies, nine quantitative and four qualitative, were included, with one qualitative and seven quantitative having a high risk of bias. All studies reported that extended reality-based telerehabilitation may be effective compared to conventional exercises or other extended reality exercises. Seven quantitative studies focused on upper limb function. Qualitative papers suggested that VR exercises were perceived as feasible by patients. Conclusions: The literature suggests VR home exercises are feasible and potentially effective for patients after a stroke in the upper limb. Further high-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of XR exercises early adoption on different qualitative and quantitative outcomes. Registration number: (CRD42022384356).

Objective: This study adopted a novel approach to exploring the content validity, safety, usability, and user experiences of different games for telerehabilitation purposes from the perspective of physiotherapists and stroke survivors. Design: A cross-sectional content validity and usability study. Setting: Lab and online. Participants: 23 participants were recruited; 11 neuro-physiotherapists and 12 chronic stroke survivors. Outcomes: Content validity and safety were assessed using a bespoke state evaluation questionnaire. The usability was evaluated using the system usability scale (SUS) and user experience questionnaire (UEQ). House of Quality analysis was conducted to identify the priority aspects for improvement. Results: Physiotherapists perceived the usability of the games as good to excellent for three games, median SUS = 80%, and poor for two games SUS < 68%. Three games had a mean average content validity index (CVI) > 0.8, and all games were safe to be administrated at home; mean CVI-safety item = 0.90. Stroke survivors with Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity function mean (SD) = 41(19.4), and mild to moderate spasticity perceived usability as very good to excellent for four games (median SUS = 85%). UEQ scale showed good to excellent acceptance among most of the games. House of Quality analysis revealed that clear instructions, avatar quality, motivational exercise scenarios, and clinical assessment tools are important criteria that should be considered throughout the development. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the value of exploring patient and physiotherapist perspectives for better telerehabilitation interventions co-development. Clinical trials should be conducted after further refinement of the games to investigate their feasibility and potential efficacy as a telerehabilitation tool for arm and balance training.

Background: Approximately 70% of survivors of stroke have problems with arm function. Physiotherapists assess arm functional range of motion (ROM) using either a goniometer or functional questionnaires, which lack objective accuracy and require a skilled physiotherapist. We developed the Track-UL algorithm based on a markerless motion capture system to measure arm ROM. Objective: This study aimed to measure the agreement between our novel Track-UL algorithm and Kinovea software in assessing arm ROM during functional tasks in the laboratory and home settings. Methods: Videos were recorded while 27 survivors of chronic stroke performed 4 functional tasks (forward reaching, arm abduction, moving the hand toward the mouth, and moving the hand toward the head) in the laboratory and at home. The videos were analyzed by 2 independent raters using the Track-UL algorithm and Kinovea software. The limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. Results: We found no clinically significant systematic bias in shoulder and elbow angle, with good agreement between the Track-UL algorithm and Kinovea software (assessed via Bland-Altman plots). The 95% limits of agreement were –3.18 to 6.41 degrees for the shoulder joint and −5.35 to 8.78 degrees for the elbow joint in the laboratory setting, and –6.21 to 3.62 degrees for the shoulder joint and −4.06 to 2.53 degrees for the elbow joint in the home setting. There was excellent absolute agreement between the measurement tools across all tasks and joints; intraclass correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99; P <.001 for both laboratory and home measurements). Conclusions: The novel Track-UL algorithm is an accurate, valid, and easy tool that can be used to assess upper-limb ROM in survivors of stroke at clinics and potentially at home. This will support physiotherapists in remotely monitoring and adapting rehabilitation programs.