Cited by 7Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsHip and Femur Fractures

Telerehabilitation for community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults after musculoskeletal trauma: a systematic review

Open access
C. Ashe, Maureen, 1 Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, Vancouver, Canada, L. Ekegren, Christina, M. Chudyk, Anna, Fleig, Lena, K. Gill, Tiffany, Langford, Dolores, Martin-Martin, Lydia +14 more·2018·AIMS Medical Science

Abstract

Background: Musculoskeletal trauma at midlife and beyond imposes significant impact on function and quality of life: Rehabilitation is key to support early and sustained recovery. There are frequent barriers to attending in-person rehabilitation that may be overcome by the recent advances in technology (telerehabilitation). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published evidence on telerehabilitation as a delivery mode for adults and older adults with musculoskeletal trauma. Methods: We followed established guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. We searched the following databases up to June 23, 2018: Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, and SportDiscus. We included publications across all available years and languages for community-dwelling adults (50 years and older) with musculoskeletal trauma; and interventions using the following delivery modes: Apps, computer, telephone, videophone, videoconference, webcam, webpage, or similar media. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria: Five studies for hip fracture (n = 260) and one study for proximal humeral fracture rehabilitation (n = 17). Four of the studies used telephone as the delivery mode, one used computer and another used video-conferencing. Two of the studies were pre-post with no comparator group, and the remaining four studies were randomized controlled trials with low or unclear risk of bias. Studies established some modes of remote delivery as feasible, but the generalizability of the findings were limited. Two studies observed significant between-group differences (favoring the intervention) for physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy. Conclusion: Very few studies exist that tested the effect of telerehabilitation for recovery after musculoskeletal trauma later in life. Given the global burden imposed by musculoskeletal trauma, this review underscores an important gap in clinical knowledge.

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 · 10.3934/medsci.2018.4.316

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Several reviews described physiotherapists, occupational therapists, trained non-professionals, exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses and chiropractors facilitating the interventions.

    “However, several described physiotherapists, occupational therapists, trained non-professionals, exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses and chiropractors facilitating the interventions.85 86 88”

    From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [86]

    The References identify an included trial involving a post-discharge telephone call by an occupational therapist, and Table 1 describes that intervention (page numbers unavailable). The review does not document the other listed facilitators—trained non-professionals, exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses, or chiropractors—as delivering its included interventions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The remaining five exercise-based reviews included studies evaluating different types of exercise-based interventions (home exercise programmes, weight training, supervised exercise sessions, therapeutic recreation, adventurous training and sports and outdoor activity training) and the distress-related outcomes reported in these reviews were mixed.

    “The remaining five reviews included studies evaluating different types of exercise-based interventions (home exercise programmes, weight training, supervised exercise sessions, therapeutic recreation, adventurous training and sports and outdoor activity training) and the distress-related outcomes reported in these reviews were mixed.8690”

    From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [86]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 1

  1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, J.A.C. S et al. (2017)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 520 (updated June 2017), Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
C. Ashe, M., 1 Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, V., L. Ekegren, C., M. Chudyk, A., Fleig, L., K. Gill, T., Langford, D., Martin-Martin, L., Ariza-Vega, P., 2 Department of Family Practice, T. U. O. B. C., 3 School of Psychology, T. U. O. A., 4 School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, M. U., 5 Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, M., 6 Alfred Emergency and Trauma Centre, M., 7 Department of Family Medicine, U. O. M., 8 Department of Natural Sciences, H. P., 9 Adelaide Medical School, F. O. H. A. M. S., 10 Vancouver Coastal Health, C., 11 Department of Physical Therapy, T. U. O. B. C., 12 Department of Physiotherapy, F. O. H. S., 13 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, V. D. L. N. U. H., & 14 PA-HELP “Physical Activity for HEaLth Promotion” Research Group. Department of Physiotherapy, U. O. G.
Affiliations
  • MSB Medical School Berlin (DE)
  • Vancouver Coastal Health (CA)
Venue
AIMS Medical Science
Published
2018
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
316-336
ISSN
  • 2375-155X (ISSN-L)
  • 2375-1576
OpenAlex
W2892776466
Cited by
7
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • AIMS Medical Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Centre for Hip Health and Mobility
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1106633)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip and Femur Fractures
Keywords
telerehabilitation, musculoskeletal injuries, community-dwelling older adults, middle-aged adults, hip fracture rehabilitation, proximal humerus fracture, videoconferencing, physical activity, quality of life, self-efficacy

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