Advertisement

Telerehabilitation Wheeled Mobility and Seating Assessments Compared With In Person

      Abstract

      Schein RM, Schmeler MR, Holm MB, Saptono A, Brienza DM. Telerehabilitation wheeled mobility and seating assessments compared with in person.

      Objective

      To evaluate the equivalency of wheeled mobility and seating assessments delivered under 2 conditions: in person (IP) at a local clinic and via Telerehabilitation at remotely located clinics.

      Design

      The study used a prospective, multicenter controlled nonrandomized design to investigate wheeled mobility and seating assessments.

      Setting

      Five wheelchair clinics in Western Pennsylvania.

      Participants

      Participants (N=98) in need of new wheeled mobility and seating were recruited and consented for IP assessments at the Center for Assistive Technology (n=50) and Telerehabilitation (n=48) assessments at remotely located clinics.

      Interventions

      The telerehabilitation condition used a custom videoconferencing system to connect a wheeled mobility and seating expert at the University of Pittsburgh's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telerehabilitation to a remote clinic.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Study findings were based on the level of function the participants showed with their new wheeled mobility and seating devices as measured by using the Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair (FEW) outcome tool.

      Results

      The results revealed no significant differences between the FEW pretest average or item scores for the 2 conditions or the FEW posttest average or item scores except for the FEW transportation item. The average FEW and FEW item scores reached the established clinically relevant pretest-posttest difference of 1.85, and the change scores were significantly different. The difference between FEW means based on posttest confidence intervals indicated that telerehabilitation was equally effective as IP rehabilitation.

      Conclusions

      An expert practitioner located at least 125 miles away from each of the remote sites used a secured videoconferencing system to consult from a geographic distance on wheeled mobility and seating evaluations via telerehabilitation. Compared with participants receiving standard IP care, the telerehabilitation treatment condition was equally effective on all but 1 outcome.

      Key Words

      List of Abbreviations:

      CAT (Center for Assistive Technology), CI (confidence interval), FEW (Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair), IP (in person), RERC-TR (Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telerehabilitation)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bashshur R.L.
        Telemedicine and health care.
        Telemed J E Health. 2002; 8: 5-12
        • Winters J.M.
        Telerehabilitation research: emerging opportunities.
        Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2002; 4: 287-320
        • Torsney K.
        Advantages and disadvantages of telerehabilitation for persons with neurological disabilities.
        NeuroRehabilitation. 2003; 18: 183-185
        • Lemaire E.D.
        • Boudrias Y.
        • Greene G.
        Low-bandwidth, internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations.
        J Telemed Telecare. 2001; 7: 82-89
        • Ricker J.
        • Rosenthal M.
        • Garay E.
        • et al.
        Telerehabilitation needs: a survey of persons with acquired brain injury.
        J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002; 17: 242-250
        • Cooper R.
        • Fitzgerald S.G.
        • Boninger M.L.
        • Brienza D.
        • Shapcott N.
        • Cooper R.A.
        Telerehabilitation: expanding access to rehabilitation expertise.
        IEEE Proc. 2001; 89: 1174-1191
        • Krupinksi E.
        • Dimmick S.
        • Grigsby J.
        • et al.
        Research recommendations for the American Telemedicine Association.
        Telemed J E Health. 2006; 12: 579-589
        • Grigsby J.
        • Schlenker R.E.
        • Kaehny M.M.
        • Shaughmessy P.W.
        • Sandberg E.J.
        Analytic framework for evaluation of telemedicine.
        Telemed J. 1995; 1: 31-39
        • Batavia M.
        • Batavia A.I.
        • Friedman R.
        Changing chairs: anticipating problems in prescribing wheelchairs.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2001; 23: 539-548
        • Phillips B.
        • Zhao H.
        Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.
        Assist Technol. 1993; 5: 36-45
        • Scherer M.J.
        Living in the state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities.
        Brookline Books, Cambridge1993
        • Cooper R.
        • Trefler E.
        • Hobson D.A.
        Wheelchairs and seating: issues and practices.
        Technol Disabil. 1996; 5: 3-16
        • Hoenig H.
        • Landerman L.R.
        • Ship K.M.
        • Pieper C.
        • Richardson M.
        A clinical trial of rehabilitation expert clinician versus usual care for providing manual wheelchairs.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53: 1712-1720
        • Hubbard S.
        • Fitzgerald S.G.
        • Reker D.M.
        • Boninger M.L.
        • Cooper R.A.
        • Kazis L.E.
        Demographic characteristics of veterans who received wheelchairs and scooters from Veterans Health Administration.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43: 831-844
        • Hunt P.C.
        • Boninger M.L.
        • Cooper R.A.
        • Zafonte R.D.
        • Fitzgerald S.G.
        • Schmeler M.R.
        Demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with disparity in wheelchair customizability among people with traumatic spinal cord injury.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 1859-1864
        • Scherer M.J.
        • Vitaliti L.T.
        A functional approach to technological factors and their assessment in rehabilitation.
        in: Dittmar S.S. Gresham G.E. Functional assessment and outcome measures for the rehabilitation health professional. Aspen Publishers, Aspen1997: 69-88
        • Schein R.M.
        • Schmeler M.R.
        • Brienza D.
        • Saptono A.
        • Parmanto B.
        Development of a service delivery protocol used for remote wheelchair consultation via telerehabilitation.
        Telemed J E Health. 2008; 14: 932-938
        • Mills T.
        • Holm M.B.
        • Schmeler M.
        Test-retest reliability and cross validation of the functioning everyday with a wheelchair instrument.
        Assist Technol. 2007; 19: 61-77
        • Mills T.
        • Holm M.B.
        • Schmeler M.
        • Trefler E.
        • Fitzgerald S.G.
        • Boninger M.
        Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 38-46
        • Sheiner L.B.
        Bioequivalence revisited.
        Stat Med. 1992; 11: 1777-1788
        • Schmeler M.R.
        Development and testing of a clinical outcome measurement tool to assess wheeled mobility and seating interventions.
        ([dissertation]) University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh2005
        • Hauck W.W.
        • Anderson S.
        Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials.
        Drug Inf J. 1999; 33: 109-118