Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Eligibility
assessment
(n = 187)
T0
N = 81
Randomisation
Intervention group
(n = 55)
Control group
(n = 26)
4
dropouts
5
dropouts
T1
(n = 50)
T1
(n = 22)
Home care activity desk as
domiciliary rehabilitation
Usual care
2
dropouts
T2
(n = 48)
Analysis
(n = 48)
T2
(n = 22)
Analysis
(n = 22)
FIgUre 16.5
(See color insert.)
Flow chart of the experimental design for the clinical evaluation of the Nu!Reha Desk.
obtained because this is available in the literature. Considering all of the impairment
causes, a significantly small difference has been revealed in assessing both groups during
the intervention period: There are always different results in the confidence intervals for
the chosen measurement tools.
In general, the results for the included set of patients demonstrate the equivalence
between the telerehabilitation and usual care groups, in which patients who more often
showed improvement with respect to usual care were those who will use the telerehabili-
tation system more frequently.
During the clinical trials, a first assessment of user satisfaction was also performed
based on direct questions for therapists and patients making use of telerehabilitation sys-
tems [those with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores below 30 were considered to be dis-
satisfied, those with scores between 31 and 69 as satisfied, and those with scores 70 and
over were considered fully satisfied]. The results were encouraging with regard to user
acceptance on both sides: Only the aesthetical aspects were considered to be unsatisfactory
(prototype versions of Nu!Reha Desk) as well as the difficulty of some tasks related to the
activity to be executed (patients).
16.3.6 Future evolutions
The promising scenario about teletherapy applied to rehabilitation is the involvement
of the whole community of potential users (patients and families, health-care suppliers,
