BackgroundDigitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation.

IntroductionPeople with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone.Methods and analysisA pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted while masked to group allocation and use an intention-to-treat approach.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the relevant Human Research Ethics Committees and the results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Trial registration numberACTRN12614000936628. Pre-results.

No abstract

Objective Virtual reality (VR) technologies are increasingly used in physical rehabilitation; however, it is unclear how VR interventions are being delivered, and, in particular, the role of the therapist remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate how commercially available VR technologies are being implemented in gait, posture, and balance rehabilitation, including justification, content, procedures, and dosage of the intervention and details of the therapist role. Methods Five databases were searched between 2008 and 2018. Supervised interventional trials with > 10 adult participants using commercially available VR technologies to address mobility limitations were independently selected by 2 authors. One author extracted reported intervention characteristics into a predesigned table and assessed methodological quality, which was independently verified by a second author. Twenty-nine studies were included. Results Generally, minimal clinical reasoning was provided to justify technology or activity selection, with recreational systems and games used most commonly (n = 25). All but 1 study used a single interventional technology. When explicitly described, the intervention was delivered by a physical therapist (n = 14), a therapist assistant (n = 2), both (n = 1) or an occupational therapist (n = 1). Most studies reported supervision (n = 12) and safeguarding (n = 8) as key therapist roles, with detail of therapist feedback less frequently reported (n = 4). Therapist involvement in program selection, tailoring, and progression was poorly described. Conclusions Intervention protocols of VR rehabilitation studies are incompletely described and generally lack detail on clinical rationale for technology and activity selection and on the therapist role in intervention design and delivery, hindering replication and translation of research into clinical practice. Future studies utilizing commercially available VR technologies should report all aspects of intervention design and delivery and consider protocols that allow therapists to exercise clinical autonomy in intervention delivery. Impact The findings of this systematic review have highlighted that VR rehabilitation interventions targeting gait, posture and balance are primarily delivered by physical therapists, whose most reported role was supervision and safeguarding. There was an absence of detail regarding complex clinical skills, such as tailoring of the intervention and reasoning for the choice of technology and activity. This uncertainty around the role of the therapist as an active ingredient in VR-based rehabilitation hinders the development of implementation guidelines. To inform the optimal involvement of therapists in VR rehabilitation, it is essential that future studies report on all aspects of VR intervention design and delivery.

No abstract