Treatment efficacy of a hybrid home-based rehabilitation intervention for patients with stroke: A randomized crossover trial

Effects of Home-Based Versus Clinic-Based Rehabilitation Combining Mirror Therapy and Task-Specific Training for Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Background: Post-operative rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a crucial phase in the recovery process. The choice between clinic-based rehabilitation (CBR) and home-based rehabilitation (HBR) depends on the patient’s specific needs, available resources, and individual preferences. This study aimed to compare CBR and HBR in terms of short-term post-operative functionality in patients who underwent THA and TKA. Methods: A prospective matched cohort study was performed on 120 patients who underwent primary THA and TKA; 60 patients underwent HBR, and 60 underwent CBR. Data gathered included instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), as well as visual analogue scale (VAS), Vail Hip Score (VHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaire results. Results: Statistically significant recovery was found in terms of VAS, VHS, and WOMAC in the HBR and CBR groups (all p < 0.001) after THA and TKA. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that higher values of VHS and WOMAC at 1 month were associated with better values of VAS, VHS, and WOMAC preoperatively (r = 0.095, p = 0.021). Conclusion: HBR showed similar short-term postoperative outcomes when compared with CBR for patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty. Greater preoperative joint functionality, a lower level of pain, and a female gender predicted better functional outcomes at 1 month after surgery in both groups.

Home-based rehabilitation is increasingly utilized to reduce health-care costs; however, with a shorter hospital stay, the possibility arises for an increase in adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost of care of home-based compared with inpatient rehabilitation following primary total hip or knee joint replacement. We randomized 234 patients, using block randomization techniques, to either home-based or inpatient rehabilitation following total joint replacement. All patients followed standardized care pathways and were evaluated, with use of validated outcome measures (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Short Form-36, and patient satisfaction), prior to surgery and at three and twelve months following surgery. The primary outcome was the WOMAC function score at three months after surgery. The mean length of stay (and standard deviation) in the acute care hospital was 6.3 +/- 2.5 days for the group designated for inpatient rehabilitation prior to transfer to that facility compared with 7.0 +/- 3.0 days for the home-based rehabilitation group prior to discharge home (p = 0.06). The mean length of stay in inpatient rehabilitation was 17.7 +/- 8.6 days. The mean number of postoperative home-based rehabilitation visits was eight. The prevalence of postoperative complications up to twelve months postoperatively was similar in both groups, which each had a 2% rate of dislocation and a 3% rate of clinically important deep venous thrombosis. The prevalence of infection was 0% in the home-based group and 2% in the inpatient group. None of these differences was clinically important. Both groups showed substantial improvements at three and twelve months, with no significant differences between the groups with respect to WOMAC, Short Form-36, or patient satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). The total episode-of-care costs (in Canadian dollars) for the inpatient rehabilitation and home-based rehabilitation arms were $14,532 and $11,082, respectively (p < 0.01). Despite concerns about early hospital discharge, there was no difference in pain, functional outcomes, or patient satisfaction between the group that received home-based rehabilitation and the group that had inpatient rehabilitation. On the basis of our findings, we recommend the use of a home-based rehabilitation protocol following elective primary total hip or knee replacement as it is the more cost-effective strategy.

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of home-based and supervised center-based selective rehabilitation in patients with Grade 1 to 3 posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD). The study included 49 subjects diagnosed with PTTD and referred to physiotherapy by an orthopedic surgeon. Subjects were randomly assigned into a home-based rehabilitation (21 cases; mean age: 33.56 ± 17.59) group or center-based rehabilitation (28 cases; mean age: 28.57 ± 14.74 years). The patients in the home-based rehabilitation group followed a home program of cold application, strengthening exercises for the posterior tibial and intrinsic muscles, and stretching in the subtalar neutral position. The patients in the center-based rehabilitation group followed a selective, supervised treatment consisting of the home protocol plus re-education of the non-functional tibialis posterior, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation methods, electrical stimulation, joint mobilization and taping techniques. Both groups received appropriate orthotics. All subjects were assessed before and after treatment for pain, muscle strength, foot function index (FFI) scores and specific tests for PTTD. Statistical analysis showed significant differences between pre- and post-treatment results for pain, first metatarsophalangeal angle, forefoot abduction angle, FFI scores and foot and ankle muscle strengths in the center-based group and for the tibialis posterior muscle strength in the home-based group (p<0.05). Intergroup comparison, however, showed no differences between the groups at the end of the treatment program with the exception of posterior tibial muscle strength (p<0.05). Home- and center-based forms of rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in relieving pain and improving functional outcome in patients with Grade 1 to 3 PTTD. A patient-selective, supervised program may provide a better improvement in tibialis posterior strength than home-based rehabilitation.

Background and objectives: Previous studies consistently found no significant difference between supervised and home-based rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the function of the nonoperative knee, hamstring strength at deep flexion, and neuromuscular control have been overlooked. This prospective observational study was performed to investigate the outcomes after ACLR in operative and nonoperative knees between supervised and home-based rehabilitations. Materials and Methods: After surgery, instructional videos demonstrating the rehabilitation process and exercises were provided for the home-based rehabilitation group. The supervised rehabilitation group visited our sports medicine center and physical therapists followed up all patients during the entire duration of the study. Isokinetic muscle strength and neuromuscular control (acceleration time (AT) and overall stability index (OSI)) of both operative and nonoperative knees, as well as patient-reported knee function (Lysholm score), were measured and compared between the two groups 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: The supervised rehabilitation group showed higher muscle strength of hamstring and quadriceps in nonoperative knees at 6 months (hamstring, p = 0.033; quadriceps, p = 0.045) and higher hamstring strength in operative and nonoperative knees at 1 year (operative knees, p = 0.035; nonoperative knees, p = 0.010) than the home-based rehabilitation group. At 6 months and 1 year, OSIs in operative and nonoperative knees were significantly better in the supervised rehabilitation group than in the home-based rehabilitation group (operative knees, p < 0.001, p < 0.001; nonoperative knees, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, at 6 months and 1 year, respectively). At 1 year, the supervised rehabilitation group also demonstrated faster AT of the hamstrings (operative knees, p = 0.016; nonoperative knees, p = 0.036). Lysholm scores gradually improved in both groups over 1 year; however, the supervised rehabilitation group showed higher scores at 1 year (87.3 ± 5.8 vs. 75.6 ± 15.1, p = 0.016). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that supervised rehabilitation may offer additional benefits in improving muscle strength, neuromuscular control, and patient-reported knee function compared with home-based rehabilitation up to 1 year after ACLR.

Background: As the population ages, the rate of hip fractures and the need for rehabilitation increases. Home-based rehabilitation (HBR) is an alternative to classic inpatient rehabilitation (IR), which is an expensive framework with non-negligible risks.Methods: A retrospective study of patients 65 years and above following surgery to repair a hip fracture who underwent HBR or IR between 2016 and 2019. The two rehabilitation frameworks were compared for rehabilitation outcome and factors predicting successful rehabilitation. The outcome was determined with the Montebello Rehabilitation Factor Score-Revised (MRFS-R).Results: Data were collected for 235 patients over 3 years. The mean age was 81.3 ± 8.0 and 172 (73.3%) were women. Of these, 138 underwent IR and 97 HBR. The HBR group had better family support and fewer lived alone. There were also differences in the type of fracture and surgery. The medical condition of the IR group was more complex, as reflected in a higher Charlson's comorbidity scores, higher rates for delirium and more infectious complications, a lower Norton score, lower serum hemoglobin, and albumin levels, and higher serum creatinine and urea levels. It also had a more significant functional decline after surgery and required a longer rehabilitation period. However, no difference was found in the rehabilitation outcomes between the two groups (MRFS-R ≥ 50). The independent predictors for rehabilitation in the IR group were serum albumin level, comorbidity, and cognitive state. There were no independent predictors in the HBR group.Conclusions: In this retrospective study, there was no significant difference in short-term rehabilitation outcomes between the HBR and IR groups event though the patients in the IR group were medically more complex. This result should be taken into account when planning rehabilitation services after hip fracture and tailoring rehabilitation frameworks to patients.

Home-based rehabilitation (HBR) has been shown to improve the lives of people living with a wide range of chronic diseases in resource-rich settings. This may also be a particularly effective strategy in resource-poor settings, where access to institution-based rehabilitation is limited. This review aimed to summarise and discuss the evidence related to the effectiveness of home-based rehabilitation (HBR) interventions designed specifically for adults living with HIV. A scoping review methodology was employed, involving systematic search techniques and appraisal of appropriate evidence. English-language journal articles that assessed the quality of life or functional ability outcomes of HBR interventions for adults living with HIV were considered for this review. Out of an initial 1 135 publications retrieved from the search of databases, six articles met this review's inclusion criteria. While this review highlights the scarcity of empirical evidence related to HBR interventions for adults living with HIV, the findings of these six articles are that HBR is a safe management option that may confer a number of physical and psychological benefits for this population. Future research on HBR interventions should include a wider range of assessment measures, including cost-benefit analyses and specific tools designed to assess the functional ability and participation in activities of daily living of participants involved in these programmes. In particular, more research on HBR is required in resource-poor environments, such as sub-Saharan Africa where HIV is endemic, to assess whether this is a feasible strategy that is both effective and practical in the areas that may need it most.

ObjectiveHome-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation have had different results in improving quality of life, negative psychology, and blood lipids. The objective of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness of home-based and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease.MethodsRCTs related to application of home-based and center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease were searched in multiple e-databases in English and Chinese from January 2000 to March 2025. Two researchers independently screened the articles and extracted the data. Cochrane5.1.0 manual was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and RevMan5.4 software was used for Meta analysis.ResultsA total of 1808 patients were included in 14 articles. Meta-analysis showed that cardiac rehabilitation at home and in hospital improved peak oxygen uptake [MD = 0.30, 95% CI (-0.37, 0.97), P=0.38] and systolic blood pressure [MD=1.10, 95% CI (-1.01, 3.21), P=0.31], diastolic blood pressure [MD=0.94, 95% CI(-1.74, 3.62), P=0.49], triglyceride [MD=-0.03,95%CI(-0.15,0.10), P=0.65],fasting glucose [MD=0.15, 95%CI (-0.17,0.47), P=0.35], quality of life and psychological status(P＞0.05), BMI (P＞0.05). Total cholesterol in the hospital-based rehabilitation group was better than that in the home-based rehabilitation group [MD=0.11, 95% CI (0.01,0.21), P=0.03], however the results were not stable.ConclusionsCompared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation, home-based cardiac rehabilitation also improves the risk factors in patients with coronary artery disease. However, whether hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation is better than home-based cardiac rehabilitation for total cholesterol needs further validation.No Patient or Public Contribution.

To test the hypotheses that older people and their informal carers are not disadvantaged by home-based rehabilitation (HBR) relative to day hospital rehabilitation (DHR) and that HBR is less costly. Two-arm randomised controlled trial. Four trusts in England providing both HBR and DHR. Clinical staff reviewed consecutive referrals to identify subjects who were potentially suitable for randomisation according to the defined inclusion criteria. Patients were randomised to receive either HBR or DHR. The primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. Secondary outcome measures included the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs), hospital admissions and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30) for carers. Overall, 89 subjects were randomised and 42 received rehabilitation in each arm of the trial. At the primary end point of 6 months there were 32 and 33 patients in the HBR and DHR arms respectively. Estimated mean scores on the NEADL scale at 6 months, after adjustment for baseline, were not significantly in favour of either HBR or DHR [DHR 30.78 (SD 15.01), HBR 32.11 (SD 16.89), p = 0.37; mean difference -2.139 (95% CI -6.870 to 2.592)]. Analysis of the non-inferiority of HBR over DHR using a 'non-inferiority' limit (10%) applied to the confidence interval estimates for the different outcome measures at 6 months' follow-up demonstrated non-inferiority for the NEADL scale, EQ-5D and HADS anxiety scale and some advantage for HBR on the HADS depression scale, of borderline statistical significance. Similar results were seen at 3 and 12 months' follow-up, with a statistically significant difference in the mean EQ-5D(index) score in favour of DHR at 3 months (p = 0.047). At the end of rehabilitation, a greater proportion of the DHR group showed a positive direction of change from their initial assessment with respect to therapist-rated clinical outcomes; however, a lower proportion of HBR patients showed a negative direction of change and, overall, median scores on the TOMs scales did not differ between the two groups. Fewer patients in the HBR group were admitted to hospital on any occasion over the 12-month observation period [18 (43%) versus 22 (52%)]; however, this difference was not statistically significant. The psychological well-being of patients' carers, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months, was unaffected by whether rehabilitation took place at day hospital or at home. As the primary outcome measure and EQ-5D(index) scores at 6 months showed no significant differences between the two arms of the trial, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken. Neither the public costs nor the total costs at the 6-month follow-up point (an average of 213 days' total follow-up) or the 12-month follow-up point (an average of 395 days' total follow-up) were significantly different between the groups. Compared with DHR, providing rehabilitation in patients' own homes confers no particular disadvantage for patients and carers. The cost of providing HBR does not appear to be significantly different from that of providing DHR. Rehabilitation providers and purchasers need to consider the place of care in the light of local needs, to provide the benefits of both kinds of services. Caution is required when interpreting the results of the RCT because a large proportion of potentially eligible subjects were not recruited to the trial, the required sample size was not achieved and there was a relatively large loss to follow-up. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71801032.

The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in India of a family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based rehabilitation intervention vs. routine care. A prospective, randomized (within seven-days of hospital admission), blinded outcome assessor, controlled trial of structured home-based rehabilitation delivered by trained and protocol-guided family caregivers (intervention) vs. routine care alone (control) was conducted in patients with residual disability. Key feasibility measures were recruitment, acceptance and adherence to assessment procedures, and follow-up of participants over six-months. CTRI/2014/10/005133. A total of 104 patients from the stroke unit at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana were recruited over nine-months. Recruitment was feasible and accepted by patients and their carers. Important observations were made regarding potential unblinding of the participants, contamination of therapy between the randomized groups, organization of home visits, and resources required for a multicenter study. The pilot study established the feasibility of conducting a large-scale study of family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based stroke rehabilitation in a low resource setting. The main phase of the trial 'ATTEND' is currently underway in over 10 centers in India.

We wished to examine the effectiveness of an early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation scheme for patients with acute stroke. This was a randomized, controlled trial comparing early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation with usual inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up care. The trial was carried out in 2 affiliated teaching hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. Participants were 86 patients with acute stroke (mean age, 75 years) who were admitted to hospital and required rehabilitation. Forty-two patients received early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation (median duration, 5 weeks), and 44 patients continued with conventional rehabilitation care after randomization. The primary end point was self-reported general health status (SF-36) at 6 months after randomization. A variety of secondary outcome measures were also assessed. Overall, clinical outcomes for patients did not differ significantly between the groups at 6 months after randomization, but the total duration of hospital stay in the experimental group was significantly reduced (15 versus 30 days; P<0.001). Caregivers among the home-based rehabilitation group had significantly lower mental health SF-36 scores (mean difference, 7 points). A policy of early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation for patients with stroke can reduce the use of hospital rehabilitation beds without compromising clinical patient outcomes. However, there is a potential risk of poorer mental health on the part of caregivers. The choice of this management strategy may therefore depend on convenience and costs but also on further evaluations of the impact of stroke on caregivers.

Recent publication of the largest trials to date investigating rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) necessitate an updated evidence review. To determine whether inpatient or clinic-based rehabilitation is associated with superior function and pain outcomes after TKA compared with any home-based program. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed were searched from inception to November 5, 2018. Search terms included knee arthroplasty, randomized controlled trial, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. Published randomized clinical trials of adults who underwent primary unilateral TKA and commenced rehabilitation within 6 postoperative weeks in which those receiving postacute inpatient or clinic-based rehabilitation were compared with those receiving a home-based program. Two reviewers extracted data independently and assessed data quality and validity according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2015, through June 4, 2018. Primary outcomes were mobility (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and patient-reported pain and function (Oxford knee score [OKS] or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) reported at 10 to 12 postoperative weeks. The GRADE assessment (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was applied to the primary outcomes. Five unique studies involving 752 unique participants (451 [60%] female; mean [SD] age, 68.3 [8.5] years) compared clinic- and home-based rehabilitation, and 1 study involving 165 participants (112 [68%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [8.0] years) compared inpatient and home-based rehabilitation. Low-quality evidence showed no clinically important difference between clinic- and home-based programs for mobility at 10 weeks (6MWT favoring home program; mean difference [MD], -11.89 m [95% CI, -35.94 to 12.16 m]) and 52 weeks (6MWT favoring home program; MD, -25.37 m [95% CI, -47.41 to -3.32 m]). Moderate-quality evidence showed no clinically important difference between clinic- and home-based programs for patient-reported pain and function at 10 weeks (OKS MD, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.05]) and 52 weeks (OKS MD, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.34]). Based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, no superiority of clinic-based or inpatient programs compared with home-based programs was found in the early subacute period after TKA. This evidence suggests that home-based rehabilitation is an appropriate first line of therapy after uncomplicated TKA for patients with adequate social supports.

Cost-effectiveness of home-based stroke rehabilitation across Europe: A modelling study

Effects of Mirror Therapy on Motor and Sensory Recovery in Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundRecent advancements in wearable sensor technology have shown the feasibility of remote physical therapy at home. In particular, the current COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the need and opportunity of internet-based wearable technology in future health care systems. Previous research has shown the feasibility of human activity recognition technologies for monitoring rehabilitation activities in home environments; however, few comprehensive studies ranging from development to clinical evaluation exist.ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) develop a home-based rehabilitation (HBR) system that can recognize and record the type and frequency of rehabilitation exercises conducted by the user using a smartwatch and smartphone app equipped with a machine learning (ML) algorithm and (2) evaluate the efficacy of the home-based rehabilitation system through a prospective comparative study with chronic stroke survivors.MethodsThe HBR system involves an off-the-shelf smartwatch, a smartphone, and custom-developed apps. A convolutional neural network was used to train the ML algorithm for detecting home exercises. To determine the most accurate way for detecting the type of home exercise, we compared accuracy results with the data sets of personal or total data and accelerometer, gyroscope, or accelerometer combined with gyroscope data. From March 2018 to February 2019, we conducted a clinical study with two groups of stroke survivors. In total, 17 and 6 participants were enrolled for statistical analysis in the HBR group and control group, respectively. To measure clinical outcomes, we performed the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity, grip power test, Beck Depression Inventory, and range of motion (ROM) assessment of the shoulder joint at 0, 6, and 12 months, and at a follow-up assessment 6 weeks after retrieving the HBR system.ResultsThe ML model created with personal data involving accelerometer combined with gyroscope data (5590/5601, 99.80%) was the most accurate compared with accelerometer (5496/5601, 98.13%) or gyroscope data (5381/5601, 96.07%). In the comparative study, the drop-out rates in the control and HBR groups were 40% (4/10) and 22% (5/22) at 12 weeks and 100% (10/10) and 45% (10/22) at 18 weeks, respectively. The HBR group (n=17) showed a significant improvement in the mean WMFT score (P=.02) and ROM of flexion (P=.004) and internal rotation (P=.001). The control group (n=6) showed a significant change only in shoulder internal rotation (P=.03).ConclusionsThis study found that a home care system using a commercial smartwatch and ML model can facilitate participation in home training and improve the functional score of the WMFT and shoulder ROM of flexion and internal rotation in the treatment of patients with chronic stroke. This strategy can possibly be a cost-effective tool for the home care treatment of stroke survivors in the future.Trial RegistrationClinical Research Information Service KCT0004818; https://tinyurl.com/y92w978t