rehabinkmag Commentary, Issue 12

Developing Effective Tele-rehab to Promote Adherence to Home-Based Exercise Therapy

Illustration by Ashlyn Fieldhouse for rehabINK

Commentary

By Kohle Merry & Megan MacPherson

More than one in four Canadians over 12 are affected by a musculoskeletal (MSK) condition annually (1). The MSK system is composed of bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, and connective tissues and functions to facilitate movement and stability of the human body (2). Common MSK conditions include back pain, repetitive strain injuries, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia (2).

A cornerstone of MSK physical therapy (PT) treatment is exercise therapy (3), defined as the prescription of specific exercises to correct impairments, restore MSK function, and promote overall well-being (4). Non-surgical management of MSK conditions using exercise therapy has demonstrated positive effects for chronic pain (5), osteoarthritis (6), sarcopenia and peripheral arterial disease (7), and tendinopathies (8), to name a few. With that said, access to PT services (9) and the costs associated with ongoing appointments remains a burden for much lower-income and rural dwelling Canadians seeking care. Specifically, the lack of rural physiotherapists working in MSK rehab, coupled with the physician referral process, clinic location, and a client’s socioeconomic status, may hinder rates of access and uptake of PT services in rural communities (10).

Supplementing in-person rehab with a home-based exercise program is a commonly used approach to improve health outcomes while decreasing reliance on healthcare practitioners and overall treatment costs (11,12). However, without a clinician present, safety remains an issue as clients have no assurance that they perform exercises as prescribed, and program adherence is often low (13,14). Remote rehabilitation, or “tele-rehab,” may offer a solution to improve patient adherence and safety while making healthcare more accessible to all Canadians. This article expands upon the role of tele-rehab within the Canadian healthcare system, describes current challenges of tele-rehab solution development, and offers recommendations for evidence-based tele-rehab development.

Article_4_Image_1
SHEVETS production (Pexels)

Tele-rehab, defined as providing rehabilitation services at a distance through telecommunications technologies such as videoconferencing or mobile phone applications (apps) (15), offers an opportunity to bolster adherence amongst home-based exercise therapies. The rapid transition to PT tele-rehab services across Canada (16) in the past year highlights the feasibility of remote service delivery using digital health technologies, wide availability of tele-rehab infrastructure, and willingness to engage with such tools by those delivering receiving care (17). Given its widespread accessibility and adoption (18), tele-rehab will likely remain a primary means of delivering healthcare and is likely to play a significant role in Canada. More than 7 million Canadians live in rural communities, many of which lack access to healthcare providers (9). That being said, there were over 325,000 health-related apps on the Apple and Google Play app stores in 2017 (19).

Moreover, little guidance is available for rehab clinicians and clients on which apps may be based on current practice guidelines, resulting in clinicians lacking confidence in their ability to prescribe effective and evidence-based tele-rehab services (20). Further, clients are often unaware of how to find tele-rehab solutions that meet their needs (21). As noted by clinicians, the main barrier to use is a lack of knowledge regarding if an app is based on current evidence (22). Additionally, many tele-rehab service developers prioritize deployment speed over rigorous development using end-users and efficacy/effectiveness testing (23). Without thorough evaluation and the incorporation of diverse stakeholders throughout the design process (e.g., clients, clinicians, insurers, etc.), tele-rehab solutions may not suit the needs of end-users or function as intended (24). Taken together, this can lead to an abundance of low-quality tele-rehab solutions which are not evidence-based and often incorporate features that the development team values, rather than relying on end-user testimony or behaviour-change science to inform features (25).

The development of cost-effective tele-rehab solutions based on best practice guidelines represents an imperative but challenging process towards improving access to effective PT services.

To improve the utility of tele-rehab for both clinicians and clients, researchers and tele-rehab developers should design services based on 1) evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs) (26) shown to improve rehab outcomes and client engagement, and 2) wants and needs of those who will be using the service (e.g., clinicians, clients, insurers). By incorporating end-user feedback throughout the formative research, design, and evaluation stages of tele-rehab app development, it is likely that uptake and engagement will improve (27). When rigorously designed based on these tenets, MSK tele-rehab has been shown to be comparable to a baseline of traditional in-person rehabilitation (28,29), providing an avenue to deliver equivalent or better PT services to more people with fewer resources (30,31). In particular, elements such as improved outcomes, ease of use, low cost, and decreased travel time, among others, have been linked to patient satisfaction with tele-rehab (32,33).

BCTs are defined as the observable components (or the “active ingredients”) within a behaviour change intervention and must be distinct (i.e., non-redundant), irreducible, and replicable (34). Several clinical trials have reported increased adherence to therapeutic exercise when using tele-rehab solutions, which incorporate BCTs, such as self-monitoring and goal setting, within the interventions (35,36). For tele-rehab developers, this highlights a potential therapeutic target for promoting adherence: by incorporating BCTs previously found to elicit positive changes to physical activity behaviours, such as prompts (e.g., push notifications, SMS) (37), rewards (e.g., gamification) (38), and biofeedback (e.g., via force plates, accelerometers, heart rate monitors) (39), developers may improve engagement and therefore adherence.

Developers should take an additional step to consult stakeholders (i.e., end-users and other related parties such as insurers) throughout the development process. Not only does this step promote intervention sustainability by addressing stakeholder-specified needs (40), but it also aids in optimizing behaviour change features within tele-rehab programming. For example, researchers can create a diverse committee of stakeholders across all levels of the care pathway (e.g., client partners, clinicians, regulatory agencies, and insurers) to aid in decision-making. Using a User-Centered Design approach (41–43), which continuously engages stakeholders throughout the intervention development and iteration process, the resulting tele-rehab solution will better suit real-world needs and improve uptake into clinical practice.

Including evidence based BCTs, which end-users have vetted, is likely to promote engagement with the tele-rehab service by those providing and receiving care.

Article_4_Image_2
Tima Miroshnichenko (Pexels)

Although COVID-19 has forced the rapid transition of traditional healthcare services to digital delivery, little attention has been paid to client or clinician perspectives and how best to pivot in-person delivery to tele-rehab models. While this article is conceptualized within the context of MSK in Canada, these suggestions on developing effective tele-rehab can be extended beyond these conditions and locations to improve healthcare access and services. By developing tele-rehab solutions in collaboration with end-users and basing programming on evidence-based techniques shown to improve health behaviours, tele-rehab has the potential to improve accessibility and availability of PT services in the rural and remote areas of Canada. Further, the strategies suggested here aim to promote shared decision-making and sustainable implementation while encouraging client adherence to exercise therapy. Taking these steps within tele-rehab intervention design can help improve access to effective rehabilitation.

Acknowledgements

Featured illustration by Ashlyn Fieldhouse for rehabINK.

To refer to this article, it can be cited as:

Merry K, MacPherson M. Developing Effective Tele-rehab to Promote Adherence to Home-Based Exercise Therapy. rehabINK. 2022:Issue12. Available from: https://rehabinkmag.com

References

  1. Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Musculoskeletal Conditions [Internet]. The Value of Physiotherapy. 2012 [cited 2021 Oct 4]. Available from: https://physiotherapy.ca/value-physiotherapy
  2. Musculoskeletal diseases: Introduction [Internet]. Statistics Canada. 2006 [cited 2021 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-619-m/82-619-m2006003-eng.htm
  3. Houglum P. Therapeutic Exercise for Musculoskeletal Injuries [Internet]. fourth edi. Human Kinetics. Human Kinetics; 2016 [cited 2021 Oct 4]. 1168 p. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Therapeutic_Exercise_for_Musculoskeletal.html?id=WVcvDAAAQBAJ
  4. Bielecki JE, Tadi P. Therapeutic Exercise.StatPearls [Internet]. 2021 Jul 9 [cited 2021 Oct 4]; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555914/
  5. Flynn DM. Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Nonpharmacologic, Noninvasive Treatments. Am Fam Physician [Internet]. 2020 Oct 15 [cited 2021 Oct 4];102(8):465–78. Available from: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&issn=0002838X&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA637941327&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext
  6. Whittaker JL, Truong LK, Dhiman K, Beck C. Osteoarthritis year in review 2020: rehabilitation and outcomes. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2021 Feb 1;29(2):190–207.
  7. Pizzimenti M, Meyer A, Charles A-L, Giannini M, Chakfé N, Lejay A, et al. Sarcopenia and peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];11(4):866–86. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcsm.12587
  8. Girgis B, Duarte JA. Physical therapy for tendinopathy: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [Internet]. Vol. 46, Physical Therapy in Sport. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 8]. p. 30–46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.08.002
  9. Shah TI, Milosavljevic S, Trask C, Bath B. Mapping physiotherapy use in Canada in relation to physiotherapist distribution. Physiother Canada [Internet]. 2019 Jun 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];71(3):213–9. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6830420/
  10. Martinello N, Bhandari A, Santos J, Dihn T. The Role of Physiotherapy in Canada: Contributing to a Stronger Health Care System. The Conference Board of Canada. 2017.
  11. Reed KB, Handžić I, McAmis S. Home-Based Rehabilitation: Enabling Frequent and Effective Training. In: Neuro-Robotics [Internet]. Springer, Dordrecht; 2014 [cited 2022 Jan 15]. p. 379–403. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-8932-5_14
  12. Argent R, Daly A, Caulfield B. Patient involvement with home-based exercise programs: Can connected health interventions influence adherence? JMIR mHealth uHealth [Internet]. 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2020 Jan 2];6(3):e8518. Available from: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2018/3/e47
  13. Jack K, McLean SM, Moffett JK, Gardiner E. Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: A systematic review. Vol. 15, Manual Therapy. Churchill Livingstone; 2010. p. 220–8.
  14. Room J, Boulton M, Dawes H, Archer K, Barker K. Physiotherapists’ perceptions of how patient adherence and non-adherence to recommended exercise for musculoskeletal conditions affects their practice: a qualitative study. Physiother (United Kingdom). 2021Dec 1;113:107–15.
  15. Russell TG. Physical rehabilitation using telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare [Internet]. 2007 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Dec 9];13(5):217–20. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1258/135763307781458886
  16. Quigley A, Johnson H, McArthur C. Transforming the provision of physiotherapy in the time of covid-19: A call to action for telerehabilitation. Physiother Canada [Internet]. 2021 Jun 27 [cited 2021 Dec 9];73(1):1–2. Available from: https://utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/ptc-2020-0031-gee
  17. Bashshur R, Doarn CR, Frenk JM, Kvedar JC, Woolliscroft JO. Telemedicine and the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons for the future. Vol. 26, Telemedicine and e-Health. Mary Ann Liebert Inc.; 2020. p. 571–3.
  18. Galea MDF. Telemedicine in Rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am [Internet]. 2019 May 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];30(2):473–83. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954160/
  19. Research2Guidance. mHealth Economics 2017 – Current Status and Future Trends in Mobile Health [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Dec 9]. Available from: https://research2guidance.com/product/mhealth-economics-2017-current-status-and-future-trends-in-mobile-health/
  20. Devan H, Godfrey HK, Perry MA, Hempel D, Saipe B, Hale L, et al. Current practices of health care providers in recommending online resources for chronic pain self-management. J Pain Res [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 6];12:2457–72. Available from: http://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S206539
  21. Larson RS. A path to better-quality mHealth apps. JMIR mHealth uHealth [Internet]. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Oct 6];6(7).Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6090170/
  22. Davis-Cheshire R, Cogar C, Collier D, Deriveau W, Kunkel E, Mouser H, et al.Occupational therapy utilisation of apps in practice in the United States. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 6];1–9. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17483107.2020.1834629
  23. Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, Ravitz A, Labrique AB, Cohen AB. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ Digit Med [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 11];2(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0111-3
  24. Simblett S, Greer B, Matcham F, Curtis H, Polhemus A, Ferrão J, et al. Barriers to and Facilitators of Engagement With Remote Measurement Technology for Managing Health: Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Findings. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Nov 3];20(7). Available from: http://www.jmir.org/2018/7/e10480/
  25. Wang RH, Kenyon LK, McGilton KS, Miller WC, Hovanec N, Boger J, et al. The Time Is Now: A FASTER Approach to Generate Research Evidence for Technology-Based Interventions in the Field of Disability and Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 3];102(9):1848–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.009
  26. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci [Internet]. 2011 Apr 23 [cited 2021 Jun 24];6(1):1–12. Available from: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/42
  27. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: A scoping review of strategies used inpartnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2021 Nov 3];37(15):1390–400. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=idre20http://informahealthcare.com/dre
  28. Cottrell MA, Russell TG. Telehealth for musculoskeletal physiotherapy. Musculoskelet Sci Pract [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];48:102193. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7261082/
  29. Seron P, Oliveros MJ, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, et al. Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapy: A Rapid Overview. Phys Ther [Internet]. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];101(6):1–18. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/6/pzab053/6131423
  30. Rogante M, Grigioni M, Cordella D, Giacomozzi C. Ten years of telerehabilitation: A literature overview of technologies and clinical applications. NeuroRehabilitation [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2021 Oct 4];27(4):287–304. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21160118/
  31. Kairy D, Lehoux P, Vincent C, Visintin M. A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Oct 4];31(6):427–47. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18720118/
  32. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, Vela J, Brooks M. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: A systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2017 Aug 1 [cited 2021 Dec 9];7(8):e016242. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/8/e016242
  33. Hasani F, Malliaras P, Haines T, Munteanu SE, White J, Ridgway J, et al.Telehealth sounds a bit challenging, but it has potential: participant and physiotherapist experiences of gym-based exercise intervention for Achilles tendinopathy monitored via telehealth. BMC Musculoskelet Disord [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2021 Nov 3];22(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33541314/
  34. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81–95.
  35. Bennell KL, Marshall CJ, Dobson F, Kasza J, Lonsdale C, Hinman RS. Does a Web-Based Exercise Programming System Improve Home Exercise Adherence for People with Musculoskeletal Conditions?: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2019 Oct 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];98(10):850–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31021823/
  36. Lambert TE, Harvey LA, Avdalis C, Chen LW, Jeyalingam S, Pratt CA, et al. An app with remote support achieves better adherence to home exercise programs than paper handouts in people with musculoskeletal conditions: a randomised trial. J Physiother [Internet]. 2017 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Oct 4];63(3):161–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28662834/
  37. Smith DM, Duque L, Huffman JC, Healy BC, Celano CM. Text Message Interventions for Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(1):142–51.
  38. Looyestyn J, Kernot J, Boshoff K, Ryan J, Edney S, Maher C. Does gamification increaseengagement with online programs? A systematic review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Oct 11];12(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173403
  39. Pfeufer D, Gililland J, Böcker W, Kammerlander C, Anderson M, Krähenbühl N, et al. Training with biofeedback devices improves clinical outcome compared to usual care in patients with unilateral TKA: a systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 11];27(5):1611–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5217-7
  40. Moore JE, Mascarenhas A, Bain J, Straus SE.Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1).
  41. ISO 9241-210. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems [Internet]. 2nd ed. Vol. 2, International Standard. 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 8]. p. 1–33. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
  42. Norman D. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books; 2013.
  43. Gould JD, Lewis C. Designing for usability-key principles and what designers think. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings [Internet]. New York, New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 1983 [cited 2021 Apr 8]. p. 50–3. Available from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=800045.801579