OBJECTIVE: telerehabilitation, compared with control conditions, on motor capacity, performance, and participation in infants at biological risk for developmental delay from birth to two years of age. METHODS: telerehabilitation compared to in-person or remote caregiver guidance were included. RESULTS: = 105 infants) of high methodological quality were included. Interventions used video calls, phone, or text messaging. Both telerehabilitation and in-person groups improved in motor outcomes and participation. In-person assessments predominated, mainly using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. None of the studies directly assessed motor performance. Additionally, variations in therapeutic approach, goals, caregiver involvement, and dosage between telerehabilitation and in-person groups within studies (1-7 sessions/week, 30-45 min, for 4-14 weeks) limited the attribution of effects to the mode of delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation shows positive effects on motor capacity and participation in at-risk infants, but methodological heterogeneity and the lack of standardized studies comparing remote and in-person interventions limits conclusions about the equivalence of these modalities.
Schlichting et al. (Mon,) studied this question.