CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Feasibility, acceptability, usability and quality of life levels in post-stroke patients undergoing telerehabilitation: Results from a multicentric pilot study

Open access
Cacciante, Luisa, Federico, Sara, Maistrello, Lorenza, Kiper, Pawel, De Icco, Roberto, Milanesi, Tommaso, Tassorelli, Cristina, Gatti, Roberto +6 more·2025·DIGITAL HEALTH
DOI 10.1177/20552076241308617PMC PMC11815802
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of an integrated multi-domain telerehabilitation (TR) system in stroke patients and to observe whether there are changes in the quality of life (QoL) levels of patients undergoing TR treatments. Methods: Patients were enrolled for a longitudinal multicentric pilot study conducted in six Italian research hospitals (IRCCS). The primary outcome was the feasibility of an integrated TR system, assessed by calculating treatment adherence and by collecting data from the Technology Acceptance Model and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Information on time and travel distance savings was also collected. As secondary outcomes, we evaluated changes in QoL levels with the EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and in caregiver burden through the Zarit Burden Inventory. Results: We enrolled 84 patients. Our system turned out to be feasible (treatment adherence = 85%), usable (SUS = 73.36/100, classifying it as a ‘good’ system) and well accepted by patients. Quality of life levels improved significantly from pre- to post-treatment (EQ-5D: p = 0.0014; SF-36 general health: p = 0.047). Caregivers perceived little or no significant care burden. Conclusions: Telerehabilitation has been confirmed to be a feasible, usable and acceptable solution to guarantee continuity of care and improve accessibility to rehabilitation treatments to post-stroke patients. Furthermore, the strength of TR is in the possibility to improve patients’ QoL, which in turn could impact on functioning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20552076241308617

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent neurorehabilitation studies demonstrate that ecologically embedded interventions within patients' social and vocational environments optimize quality of life by strengthening community integration.

    “Recent neurorehabilitation studies31,32 corroborate this premise, demonstrating that ecologically embedded interventions within patients’ social and vocational environments optimize quality of life by strengthening community integration.”

    From ORLA combined with telerehabilitation in patients with subacute Poststroke aphasia: a randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction says treatment in patients’ social, educational and vocational environments can enhance family and community integration. The Discussion reports increased perceived quality of life after home-based telerehabilitation and suggests that being at home helps social and working-life reintegration. It does not demonstrate that community integration caused the quality-of-life improvement, so the claim overstates the study’s findings. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1]Sacco RL Kasner SE Broderick JP, et al. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2013; 44: 2064– 2089. 23652265 PMC11078537
  2. [2]Langhorne P Bernhardt J Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 2011; 377: 1693– 1702. 21571152
  3. [3]Bernhardt J Hayward KS Kwakkel G, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31: 793– 799. 28934920
  4. [4]Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: i. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol 2008; 63: 272– 287. 18383072
  5. [6]Theodoros DG. Telerehabilitation for service delivery in speech–language pathology. J Telemed Telecare 2008; 14: 221– 224. 18632993
  6. [7]Winters JM. Telerehabilitation research: emerging opportunities. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2002; 4: 287– 320. 12117760
  7. [8]Temkin AJ Ulicny GR Vesmarovich SH. Telerehab. A perspective of the way technology is going to change the future of patient treatment. Rehab Manag 1996; 9: 28– 30. 10166562
  8. [9]Federico S Cacciante L Cieślik B, et al. Telerehabilitation for neurological motor impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis on quality of life, satisfaction, and acceptance in stroke, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Med 2024; 13: 299. 38202306 PMC10779774
  9. [10]Agostini M Moja L Banzi R, et al. Telerehabilitation and recovery of motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21: 202– 213. 25712109
  10. [11]Goffredo M Pagliari C Turolla A, et al. Non-immersive virtual reality telerehabilitation system improves postural balance in people with chronic neurological diseases. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 3178. 37176618 PMC10179507
  11. [12]Cacciante L Pieta CD Rutkowski S, et al. Cognitive telerehabilitation in neurological patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 2022; 43: 847– 862. 34822030 PMC8613517
  12. [13]Calabrò RS Bonanno M Torregrossa W, et al. Benefits of telerehabilitation for patients with severe acquired brain injury: promising results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial using nonimmersive virtual reality. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e45458. PMC10477931 37490017
  13. [14]Cacciante L Kiper P Garzon M, et al. Telerehabilitation for people with aphasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Commun Disord 2021; 92: 106111. 34052617
  14. [15]Constantinescu G Theodoros D Russell T, et al. Assessing disordered speech and voice in Parkinson's disease: a telerehabilitation application. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2010; 45: 630– 644. 20102257
  15. [16]Reverberi C Gottardo G Battel I, et al. The neurogenic dysphagia management via telemedicine: a systematic review. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2022; 58: 179– 189. 34605620 PMC9980496
  16. [17]Wong AKC Kwok VWY Wong FKY, et al. Improving post-acute stroke follow-up care by adopting telecare consultations in a nurse-led clinic: study protocol of a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. J Adv Nurs 2024; 80: 1222– 1231. 37950400
  17. [18]Federico S Cacciante L De Icco R, et al. Telerehabilitation for stroke: a personalized multi-domain approach in a pilot study. J Pers Med 2023; 13: 1692. 38138919 PMC10744683
  18. [20]Brooke J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 1995; 189: 4– 7.
  19. [21]Sauro J Lewis JR. Chapter 2—quantifying user research. In: Sauro J Lewis JR (eds) Quantifying the user experience. 2nd ed. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann, 2016, pp. 9– 18.
  20. [22]Bangor A Kortum PT Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum–Comput Interact 2008; 24: 574– 594.
  21. [23]Bangor A Kortum P Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 2009; 4: 114– 123.
  22. [24]Lewis JR. Measuring perceived usability: the CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. Int J Hum–Comput Interact 2018; 34: 1148– 1156.
  23. [26]Gagnon MP Orruño E Asua J, et al. Using a modified Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate healthcare professionals’ adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemed J E Health 2012; 18: 54– 59. 22082108 PMC3270047
  24. [28]Group TE. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199– 208. 10109801
  25. [30]Schreiner AS Morimoto T Arai Y, et al. Assessing family caregiver's mental health using a statistically derived cut-off score for the Zarit Burden Interview. Aging Ment Health 2006; 10: 107– 111. 16517485
  26. [31]Grau-Pellicer M Lalanza JF Jovell-Fernández E, et al. Impact of mHealth technology on adherence to healthy PA after stroke: a randomized study. Top Stroke Rehabil 2020; 27: 354– 368. 31790639
  27. [32]Stephenson A Howes S Murphy PJ, et al. Factors influencing the delivery of telerehabilitation for stroke: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2022; 17: e0265828. PMC9094559 35544471
  28. [33]Jack K McLean SM Moffett JK, et al. Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: a systematic review. Man Ther 2010; 15: 220– 228. 20163979 PMC2923776
  29. [34]Vasey LM. DNAs and DNCTs — why do patients fail to begin or to complete a course of physiotherapy treatment? Physiotherapy 1990; 76: 575– 578.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cacciante, L., Federico, S., Maistrello, L., Kiper, P., De Icco, R., Milanesi, T., Tassorelli, C., Gatti, R., Jonsdottir, J., Franceschini, M., Goffredo, M., Calabrò, R. S., Turolla, A., & on behalf of The Italian Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Network (RIN) *
Affiliations
  • IRCCS San Camillo Hospital (IT)
  • Laboratory of Healthcare Innovation Technology, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy
  • Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
  • Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Nazionale Casimiro Mondino (IT)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation (IT)
  • IRCCS San Raffaele Roma (IT)
  • San Raffaele University of Rome (IT)
  • Centro Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo (IT)
  • IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT)
Corresponding author
Federico, Sara
ORCID
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-01
Volume
11
Pages
20552076241308617-20552076241308617
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20552076241308617
PMC
PMC11815802
OpenAlex
W4407397365
Cited by
7
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministero della Salute (RCR-2022-23682290)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
telerehabilitation, stroke rehabilitation, quality of life, feasibility, usability, technology acceptance, caregiver burden, medication adherence, continuity of care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review