Challenges to the Emergence of Telerehabilitation in a Developing Country: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Despite being known abroad as a viable alternative to face-to-face consultation and therapy, telerehabilitation has not fully emerged in developing countries like the Philippines. In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, wherein social distancing disrupted the in-clinic delivery of rehabilitation services, Filipinos attempted to explore telerehabilitation. However, several hindrances were observed especially during the pre-implementation phase of telerehabilitation, necessitating a review of existing local evidences. Objective: We aimed to determine the challenges faced by telerehabilitation in the Philippines. Method: We searched until March 2020 through PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and HeRDIN for telerehabilitation-related publications wherein Filipinos were involved as investigator or population. Because of the hypothesized low number of scientific outputs on telerehabilitation locally, we performed handsearching through gray literature and included relevant papers from different rehabilitation-related professional organizations in the Philippines. We analyzed the papers and extracted the human, organizational, and technical challenges to telerehabilitation or telehealth in general. Results: We analyzed 21 published and 4 unpublished papers, which were mostly reviews (8), feasibility studies (6), or case reports/series (4). Twelve out of 25 studies engaged patients and physicians in remote teleconsultation, teletherapy, telementoring, or telemonitoring. Patients sought telemedicine or telerehabilitation for general medical conditions (in 3 studies), chronic diseases (2), mental health issues (2), orthopedic problems (2), neurologic conditions (1), communication disorders (1), and cardiac conditions (1). Outcomes in aforementioned studies mostly included telehealth acceptance, facilitators, barriers, and satisfaction. Other studies were related to telehealth governance, legalities, and ethical issues. We identified 18 human, 17 organizational, and 18 technical unique challenges related to telerehabilitation in the Philippines. The most common challenges were slow internet speed (in 10 studies), legal concerns (9), and skepticism (9). Leochico et al. Telerehabilitation Challenges in Developing Country Conclusion: There is paucity of data on telerehabilitation in the Philippines. Local efforts can focus on exploring or addressing the most pressing human, organizational, and technical challenges to the emergence of telerehabilitation in the country.

Barriers and Challenges of Implementing Telerehabilitation: A Systematic Review

“…Concerning the various mentioned organizational factors in the literature as the main identified barriers of TR implementation, the most frequent characteristics were no appropriate health information systems framework, the lack of national e-health policies or laws, data privacy measures, and governance measures. Among all individual factors across categories, the lack of access to the internet was the main barrier to telehealth [15].…”

Tele-Neurorehabilitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Practice in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

“…TNR service itself is an innovative intervention that must be feasible for implementation. In LMICs, much of the health and rehabilitation services is accessed through the private sector; hence, ensuring uniformity in the services and standards similar to the public run services may be challenging ( 51 ). Rehabilitation facilities can be small, with only an out-patient facility to a comprehensive in-patient facility.…”

Substantiating Clinical Effectiveness and Potential Barriers to the Widespread Implementation of Spinal Cord Injury Telerehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis of Randomized Trials in the Recent Past Decade

“…Study protocols merely proposing a study design without resultant data or interventional outcomes were all excluded. Since telerehabilitation is still considered evolving and require fine tuning, 19 particularly in technology advancements, our review focused on current research spanning the past decade. Studies published outside of the specified date range-between 2010 and 2020-were also excluded.…”