Implementation of digital health interventions in rehabilitation: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Digital health interventions have potential to enhance rehabilitation services by increasing accessibility, affordability and scalability. However, implementation of digital interventions in rehabilitation is poorly understood. This scoping review aims to map current strategies, research designs, frameworks, outcomes and determinants used to support and evaluate the implementation of digital interventions in rehabilitation. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searches from inception until October 2022 of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SpeechBITE, NeuroBITE, REHABDATA, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry and the Cochrane Library. METHODS: Two reviewers screened studies against the eligibility criteria. Implementation science taxonomies and methods, including Powell et al.'s compilation of implementation strategies, were used to guide analysis and synthesis of findings. RESULTS: The search retrieved 13,833 papers and 23 studies were included. Only 4 studies were randomised controlled trials and 9 studies (39%) were feasibility studies. Thirty-seven discrete implementation strategies were reported across studies. Strategies related to training and educating clinicians (91%), providing interactive assistance (61%), and developing stakeholder interrelationships (43%) were most frequently reported. Few studies adequately described implementation strategies and methods for selecting strategies. Almost all studies measured implementation outcomes and determinants; most commonly, acceptability, compatibility and dose delivered of digital interventions. CONCLUSION: The rigour of implementation methods in the field is currently poor. Digital interventions require carefully planned and tailored implementation to facilitate successful adoption into rehabilitation practice. To keep pace with rapidly advancing technology, future rehabilitation research should prioritise using implementation science methods to explore and evaluate implementation while testing effectiveness of digital interventions.

What attributes of digital devices are important to clinicians in rehabilitation? A cross-cultural best-worst scaling study.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions are becoming increasingly popular in rehabilitation. Understanding of device features which impact clinician adoption and satisfaction is limited. Research in the field should be conducted across diverse settings to ensure digital interventions do not exacerbate healthcare inequities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand rehabilitation clinicians' preferences regarding device attributes and included a cross-cultural comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Choice experiment methodology (best-worst scaling) was used to survey rehabilitation clinicians across Australia and Brazil. Participants completed 10 best-worst questions, choosing the most and least important device attributes from subsets of 31 attributes in a partially balanced block design. Results were analysed using multinomial models by country and latent class. Attribute preference scores (PS) were scaled to 0-100 (least to most important). RESULTS: A total of 122 clinicians from Brazil and 104 clinicians from Australia completed the survey. Most respondents were physiotherapists (83%) working with neurological populations (51%) in the private/self-employed sector (51%) who had experience using rehabilitation devices (87%). Despite preference heterogeneity across country and work sector (public/not-for-profit versus private/self-employed/other), clinicians consistently prioritised patient outcomes (PS 100.0, 95%CI: 86.2-100.0), patient engagement (PS 93.9, 95%CI: 80.6-94.2), usability (PS 81.3, 95%CI: 68.8-82.5), research evidence (PS 80.4, 95%CI: 68.1-81.7) and risk (PS 75.7, 95%CI: 63.8-77.3). In Australia, clinicians favoured device attributes which facilitate increased therapy dosage (PS 79.2, 95%CI: 62.6-81.1) and encourage patient independent practice (PS 66.8, 95%CI: 52.0-69.2). In Brazil, clinicians preferred attributes enabling device use for providing clinical data (PS 67.6, 95%CI: 51.8-70.9) and conducting clinical assessments (PS 65.6, 95%CI: 50.2-68.8). CONCLUSION: Clinicians prioritise patients' needs and practical application over technical aspects of digital rehabilitation devices. Contextual factors shape clinician preferences rather than individual clinician characteristics. Future device design and research should consider preferences and influences, involving diverse stakeholders to account for context-driven variations across cultures and healthcare settings.

Validation of a novel range of motion assessment tool for the cervical spine: the HALO© digital goniometer.

Background: Cervical spine range of motion (ROM) assessment has long been carried out via use of the universal goniometer (UG) as an objective tool in the evaluation of patient rehabilitation pre- and post-operatively. The advent of novel ROM assessment technology, such as HALO digital goniometer (DG), presents an avenue for research and potential application within clinical and surgical settings. The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the HALO DG in the assessment of the active ROM of the cervical spine. Methods: One hundred healthy subjects were recruited for the study and were split into two groups to be assessed by either physiotherapists or medical students. The methodology for cervical spine ROM assessment was carried out per the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. The reliability analysis was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to determine both the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the device. Results: Inter-rater reliability within the physiotherapist cohort with the DG (ICCr =0.477, 0.718, 0.551) was higher compared to the UG (ICCr =0.380, 0.510, 0.255) for active cervical flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. The UG (ICCr =0.819) showed better reliability versus the DG (ICCr =0.780) when assessing cervical extension. Similarly, in the medical student cohort, the DG outperformed the UG in all movement except cervical lateral flexion. When assessing for intra-rater reliability, the DG (ICCm =0.507, 0.773, 0.728, 0.691) performed better than the UG (ICCm =0.487, 0.529, 0.532, 0.585) in cervical flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. Conclusions: The present validation study identified the DG as a reliable substitute for the UG.

Blockade of Rostral Ventrolateral Medulla Apelin Receptors Does Not Attenuate Arterial Pressure in SHR and L-NAME-Induced Hypertensive Rats.

Dysfunction of the apelinergic system, comprised of the neuropeptide apelin mediating its effects via the G protein-coupled apelin receptor (APJ), may underlie the onset of cardiovascular disease such as hypertension. Apelin expression is increased in the rostral ventrolateral medulla (RVLM) in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) compared to Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) normotensive rats, however, evidence that the apelinergic system chronically influences mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) under pathophysiological conditions remains to be established. In this study we investigated, in conscious unrestrained rats, whether APJ contributes to MABP and sympathetic vasomotor tone in the progression of two models of hypertension - SHR and L-NAME-treated rats - and whether APJ contributes to the development of hypertension in pre-hypertensive SHR. In SHR we showed that APJ gene (aplnr) expression was elevated in the RVLM, and there was a greater MABP increase following microinjection of [Pyr1]apelin-13 to the RVLM of SHR compared to WKY rats. Bilateral microinjection of a lentiviral APJ-specific-shRNA construct into the RVLM of WKY, SHR, and L-NAME-treated rats, chronically implanted with radiotelemeters to measure MABP, decreased aplnr expression in the RVLM and abolished acute [Pyr1]apelin-13-induced increases in MABP. However, chronic knockdown of aplnr in the RVLM did not affect MABP in either SHR or L-NAME-treated rats. Moreover, knockdown of aplnr in the RVLM of prehypertensive SHR did not protect against the development of hypertension. These results show that endogenous apelin, acting via APJ, is not involved in the genesis or maintenance of hypertension in either animal model used in this study.