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.

[1]  Shirley G Fitzgerald,et al.  Demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with disparity in wheelchair customizability among people with traumatic spinal cord injury. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Richard M. Schein,et al.  Development of a service delivery protocol used for remote wheelchair consultation via telerehabilitation. , 2008, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[3]  Rory A. Cooper,et al.  Telerehabilitation: Expanding access to rehabilitation expertise , 2001, Proc. IEEE.

[4]  Klaus Abraham-Fuchs,et al.  Telerehabilitation Needs: A Survey of Persons with Acquired Brain Injury , 2002, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[5]  J. Winters.  Telerehabilitation research: emerging opportunities. , 2002, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[6]  M. Batavia,et al.  Changing chairs: anticipating problems in prescribing wheelchairs. , 2001, Disability and rehabilitation.

[7]  Edward J. Hamilton,et al.  Living in the State of Stuck: How Technology Impacts the Lives of People with Disabilities. , 1997 .

[8]  Walter W. Hauck,et al.  Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence Trials , 1999 .

[9]  Mark Schmeler,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability and Cross Validation of the Functioning Everyday With a Wheelchair Instrument , 2007, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[10]  Mark R. Schmeler,et al.  Development and testing of a clinical outcome measurement tool to assess wheeled mobility and seating interventions , 2005 .

[11]  R. Bashshur,et al.  Chapter 1: Telemedicine and Health Care , 2002 .

[12]  Stuart Speedie,et al.  Research recommendations for the american telemedicine association. , 2006, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[13]  Shirley G Fitzgerald,et al.  Demographic characteristics of veterans who received wheelchairs and scooters from Veterans Health Administration. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[14]  E. Lemaire,et al.  Low-bandwidth, Internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations , 2001, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[15]  Kathleen Torsney.  Advantages and disadvantages of telerehabilitation for persons with neurological disabilities. , 2003, NeuroRehabilitation.

[16]  C. Granger,et al.  Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Health Professional , 2005 .

[17]  J. Grigsby,et al.  Analytic framework for evaluation of telemedicine. , 1995, Telemedicine journal : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[18]  B Phillips,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. , 1993, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[19]  Scherer Mj,et al.  A functional approach to technological factors and their assessment in rehabilitation , 1997 .

[20]  Helen Hoenig,et al.  A Clinical Trial of a Rehabilitation Expert Clinician Versus Usual Care for Providing Manual Wheelchairs , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[21]  T Mills,et al.  Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[22]  Rory A. Cooper,et al.  Wheelchairs and seating: Issues and practice , 1996 .