Is Telerehabilitation a Viable Option for People With Low Back Pain? Associations Between Telerehabilitation and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to examine associations between frequency of telerehabilitation (TR) and outcomes of functional status (FS), number of visits, and patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and to compare FS outcomes by TR delivery mode for individuals with low back pain.MethodsPropensity score matching was used to match episodes of care with or without TR exposure by the probability of receiving TR. FS, visits, and satisfaction were compared for individuals without TR and those who received care by TR for “any,” “few,” “most,” or “all” frequencies (4 matched samples), and FS was compared for individuals receiving synchronous, asynchronous, and mixed TR modes (3 matched samples). Standardized differences were used to compare samples before and after matching. Outcomes between matched samples were compared using z tests with 95% CI.ResultsThe sample consisted of 91,117 episodes of care from 1398 clinics located in 46 states (58% women; mean age = 55 [SD = 18]). Of those, only 5013 episodes (5.5%) involved any amount of TR. All standardized differences between matched samples were <0.1. There was no significant difference in FS points (range = 0–100, with higher representing better FS) between matched samples, except for episodes that had ``few'' (−1.7) and ``all'' (+2.0) TR frequencies or that involved the asynchronous (−2.6) TR mode. These point differences suggest limited clinical importance. Episodes with any TR frequency involved significantly fewer visits (0.7–1.3) than episodes with no TR, except that those with the “most” TR frequency had non-significantly fewer visits (0.6). A smaller proportion of individuals with TR (−4.0% to −5.0%) than of individuals with no telerehabilitation reported being very satisfied with treatment results, except for those with the “all” TR frequency.ConclusionsA positive association between TR and rehabilitation outcomes was observed, with a trend for better FS outcomes and fewer visits when all care was delivered through TR. Satisfaction tended to be lower with TR use. Overall, this observational study showed that for people with low back pain, physical therapy delivered through TR was equally effective as and more efficient than in-person care, with a trend of higher effectiveness when used for all visits during the episode of care. No differences in FS outcomes were observed between care delivered with synchronous and mixed TR delivery modes and care delivered with no TR. However, the asynchronous mode of TR was associated with worse functional outcomes than no TR. Although the majority of people were very satisfied with their treatment results with and without TR, very high satisfaction rates were reported by a slightly smaller proportion of individuals with TR versus those without TR. Our results suggest that TR is a viable option for rehabilitation care for individuals with low back pain and should also be considered in the post–COVID-19 era.