Effectiveness, usability, and cost-benefit of a virtual reality-based telerehabilitation program for balance recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

Roberto Lloréns, Enrique Noé, Carolina Colomer, Mariano Alcañiz

Journal: Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2015;96(3):418-425.e2

PMID: 25448245

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

First, to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR)-based telerehabilitation program in the balance recovery of individuals with hemiparesis after stroke in comparison with an in-clinic program; second, to compare the subjective experiences; and third, to contrast the costs of both programs.

DESIGN

Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Neurorehabilitation unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic outpatients with stroke (N=30) with residual hemiparesis.

INTERVENTIONS

Twenty 45-minute training sessions with the telerehabilitation system, conducted 3 times a week, in the clinic or in the home.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

First, Berg Balance Scale for balance assessment. The Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment balance and gait subscales, and the Brunel Balance Assessment were secondary outcome measures. Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, 8 weeks (posttreatment), and 12 weeks (follow-up). Second, the System Usability Scale and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory for subjective experiences. Third, cost (in dollars).

RESULTS

Significant improvement in both groups (in-clinic group [control] and a home-based telerehabilitation group) from the initial to the final assessment in the Berg Balance Scale (ηp(2)=.68; P=.001), in the balance (ηp(2)=.24; P=.006) and gait (ηp(2)=.57, P=.001) subscales of the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, and in the Brunel Balance Assessment (control: χ(2)=15.0; P=.002; experimental: χ(2)=21.9; P=.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in any balance scale or in the feedback questionnaires. With regard to subjective experiences, both groups considered the VR system similarly usable and motivating. The in-clinic intervention resulted in more expenses than did the telerehabilitation intervention ($654.72 per person).

CONCLUSIONS

First, VR-based telerehabilitation interventions can promote the reacquisition of locomotor skills associated with balance in the same way as do in-clinic interventions, both complemented with a conventional therapy program; second, the usability of and motivation to use the 2 interventions can be similar; and third, telerehabilitation interventions can involve savings that vary depending on each scenario.

Copyright © 2015 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Address: Instituto Interuniversitario de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Tecnología Orientada al Ser Humano, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain; Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: [email protected].; Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, Valencia, Spain.; Instituto Interuniversitario de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Tecnología Orientada al Ser Humano, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain; Ciber, Fisiopatología Obesidad y Nutrición, CB06/03 Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Univesitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.