Cited by 51Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Exploring the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Telehealth Stroke Self-Management Programme: A Pilot Study

Open access
Huijbregts, Maria P.J., McEwen, Sara, Taylor, Denise·2009·Physiotherapy Canada

Abstract

Purpose Moving On after STroke (MOST) is an established self-management programme for persons with stroke and their care partners. Through 18 sessions over 9 weeks, each including discussion and exercise, participants learn about goal-setting, problem-solving, exercise, and community-reintegration skills. This study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of telehealth delivery of MOST. Method Efficacy was evaluated using an experimental non-randomized trial comparing a telehealth MOST intervention group (T-MOST) (n = 10) with a waiting list control group (WLC) (n = 8). Outcome measures included the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile, Goal Attainment Scaling, and the Geriatric Depression Scale. The feasibility evaluation included attendance rates, focus groups, and facilitator logs. In MOST Telehealth, one co-facilitator was local and the other was connected by videoconference. Results Attendance rates for persons with stroke (83.9%, SD = 2.6) and care partners (76.7%, SD = 2.9) and participant and facilitator experiences indicated feasibility of this mode of programme delivery. There was a significant difference in BBS scores between the T-MOST group and the WLC group (mean difference -4.27, 95%CI: -6.66 to -1.87). Participants reported additional benefits, including increased motivation and awareness of partners' needs. Videoconferencing was reported to decrease their sense of isolat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3138/physio.61.4.210

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 54 · Cited by 51

Authors
Huijbregts, M. P. J., McEwen, S., & Taylor, D.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Huijbregts, Maria P.J.
Venue
Physiotherapy Canada
Published
2009-10
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
210-220
ISSN
  • 0300-0508 (ISSN-L)
  • 1708-8313
OpenAlex
W1981233874
Cited by
51
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physiotherapy Canada (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
stroke self-management, telemedicine, videoconferencing, care partners, stroke rehabilitation, balance, community reintegration, goal achievement, depression, feasibility

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