Rehabilitation Professional and Patient Satisfaction with Telerehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review

Table 1

Patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation.

	Authors (years)	Country	Study design & quality of evidence^a	Sample size	Study papulation	Technology explored	Variables assessed	Study demonstrate satisfaction	Findings
1	Bini and Mahajan, 2017 [10]	USA	RCT,1	28 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Post TKA	Asynchronous video-based mobile application	(i) Satisfaction with the experience; (ii) Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	Patient satisfaction was high for both groups with no difference
2	Culliton et al., 2018 [19]	Canada	RCT,1	319 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Post TKA	Online e-learning tool	(i) Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question; (ii) Satisfaction with current health state	Yes ()	78.6% in the intervention and 78.2% in the control groups were satisfied
3	Doiron-Cadrin et al., 2020 [20]	Canada	RCT,1	22 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Pre TKA/THA	Reacts lite application	Telecommunication applications	Yes ()	Patient satisfaction was excellent toward telerehabilitation without any significant association between the groups
4	Tousignant et al., 2011 [8]	Canada	RCT,1	42 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Post TKA	Video conferencing	(i) Healthcare satisfaction questionnaire; (ii) Satisfaction with the relationship with the healthcare professional; (iii) Satisfaction with the services delivered, (iv) Satisfaction with the general healthcare organization	Yes ()	Patient satisfaction was observed in both groups (tele and comparison) without any significant association between the groups
5	Nelson et al., 2020 [21]	Australia	RCT,1	69 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	THA	eHAB application	(i) Satisfaction questionnaire of the rehabilitation program; (ii) Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	In both groups (intervention & tele), overall satisfaction was high but the score regarding ease of attending appointment was high in the intervention group as compared to telegroup
6	Salazar-Fernandez et al., 2012 [25]	Spain	NRCT,2	992 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Temporomandibular joint disorders	Store-and-forward telemedicine system (SFTMS)	(i) Telemedicine again; (ii) Feel uncomfortable; (iii) Prefer to be treated quickly; (iv) Travel saving; (v) Hours of lost-work saving	Yes ()	283 patients reported that they would like to consult by teleconsultation again; There was no record of uncomfortable incidence from any patient with teleconsultation
7	Katt et al., 2012 [24]	USA	PCS,2	167 (follow-up, ; new,)	Upper extremity conditions	A telephone call or video	(i) Quality of time spent with the provider, preference of telehealth versus an in office encounter, or a combination of both	Yes ()	Both patient and physician responded that they are very satisfied with the telehealth sessions but some patients should have telerehabilitation program incorporated with some face-to-face evaluation sessions as they were less satisfied while evaluating new patients
8	Mayer et al., 2021 [26]	Israel	NRCT,2	18 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Upper limb function after fractures	Biofeedback system of elbow motion	(i) Patient satisfaction questionnaire	Yes ()	The telerehabilitation group reported a higher level of enjoyment of the self-practice with less support from family members and no difference was found regarding satisfaction level between two groups
9	Tsvyakh, 2018 [23]	Ukraine	CSS,4	74 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Injuries of the lower extremities	Home remote monitoring by using a smartphone	(i) Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	Patient satisfaction was higher for the telerehabilitation as compared to traditional rehabilitation due to the reason of time saving and cost of rehabilitation
10	Moffet et al., 2017 [9]	Canada	RCT,1	182 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Post TKA	Videoconferencing system	(i) Relationship with the professional; (ii) Delivery of services; (iii) Organization of services	Yes ()	Overall satisfaction was high in both groups without any difference in both groups
11	Pani et al., 2017 [13]	Italy	NRCT,2	40 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	Hand function impairment in rheumatic patients	Sensorized tools for hand exercises	(i) Satisfaction of the product; (ii) Associated services	Yes ()	Most of the patients were satisfied with the services and accepted the telerehabilitation system
12	Jansen-Kosterink et al., 2015 [27]	Netherlands	CSS,4	60 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	CLBP	Teleconference	(i) Rate satisfaction with service; (ii) Recommend the service to another patient	Yes ()	About 70% telerehabilitation scored 6 or higher score on a scale from 0 to 10 and 36% reported that they would like to recommend the telerehabilitation services to another patient
13	Bailey et al., 2020 [28]	USA	RCS,3	Back pain (), knee pain ()	Low back & knee pain	Hinge health app installed	Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	There was an overall satisfaction among patients in Digital Care Program (DCP) with a final satisfaction score of 8.97/10
14	Peterson, 2018 [29]	USA	CSS,4	3	CLBP	Mobile phone application with synchronous audio and video booster sessions	Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	The overall satisfaction with the telerehabilitation program was very high
15	Cottrell et al., 2019 [22]	Australia	NRCT,2	61 (intervention, ; face-to-face, )	LBP & neck pain	Mobile phone application	(i) Cost; (ii) Access; (iii) Time; (iv) Overall satisfaction	Yes ()	(i) The overall satisfaction between two groups was similar; (ii) The satisfaction level was high for responses relating to access, cost and time saving, and overall experience in TR group; (iii) The satisfaction of professionals regarding appointments was averaged 4.1 out of 5 points

TR: telerehabilitation; FTF: face-to-face; RCT: randomized clinical trial; NRCT: nonrandomized clinical trial; CCS: case-control study; CSS: case-series study; RCS: retrospective cohort study; PCS: prospective cohort study CLBP: chronic low back pain; LBP: low back pain; TKA: total knee arthroplasty; THA: total hip arthroplasty. ^aLevel of evidence. (1) Properly designed RCT or systematic review with meta-analysis; (2) well-designed controlled trial without randomization, prospective study, or comparative cohort trial; (3) case-control study or retrospective cohort study; and (4) case-series or cross-sectional study.