Scoping review identifies telerehabilitation methods and outcomes for stroke survivors, suggesting diverse models may enhance recovery.
Objective To identify and map the intervention models, outcome domains and evidence gaps of telerehabilitation studies initiated during the hospital-to-home transition after a stroke. Design A scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Data sources PubMed, Web of Science and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from 2000 onward (original search: April 2025). An updated supplementary search using broader terms was conducted in the same three databases in May 2026, applying the same start date and the same eligibility criteria. Review methods Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Data on the study design, participants, intervention characteristics, comparators and outcomes were extracted and descriptively synthesised. The studies were grouped by intervention model. Results Eighteen studies were included and classified into four models: caregiver-mediated exercise, technology-driven motor telerehabilitation, multidisciplinary transitional care and low-technology or mobile health-supported. Technology-driven models showed motor outcomes comparable to conventional rehabilitation but inconsistent between-group superiority. Caregiver-mediated models did not improve primary mobility outcomes but suggested benefits for caregivers and psychosocial outcomes. Multidisciplinary models frequently improved quality of life, self-management and broader outcomes. Participation-level outcomes remained under-represented in the literature. Conclusion Telerehabilitation during the hospital-to-home transition is feasible and has been delivered through diverse models. Future research should evaluate participation, community reintegration, caregiver outcomes and implementation fidelity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takenaka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: