Identifying the challenges of 6 months telerehabilitation programme on non-covid patients during Covid -19 through patients' perception

Authors

  •   Dr. Maheshwari Harishchandre Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation's College of Physiotherapy, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India 414111
  •   Dr. Suvarna Ganvir Professor & HOD Department of Neurophysiotherapy, D.V.V.P.F's College of Physiotherapy, Ahmednagar.

Keywords:

Perception, Telerehabilitation, Physiotherapy, Exercises Etc.

Abstract

Background: The effect of Covid-19 on medical care for conditions other than Covid-19 has been difficult to quantify.1 Any decrease in care for patients with stroke may be consequential because timely treatment may decrease the disability. Methodology: A qualitative type of study was conducted on 15participants. Old neuro patients, participants who were willing to participate & performing ADL's with difficulty or minimal assistance were included & new patients, participants with neurological abnormalities, were excluded. Result: A total 15 participants with neurological dysfunction were included in the study. The mean duration of symptoms was 2.83±2.35 in years. 80% of patients were like the concept of telerehabilitation & 100% of patients were satisfied with the telerehabilitation session. Conclusion: Patients were generally satisfied of the telerehabilitation programme during COVID; however, they showed less interest after several sessions and challenging to take follow up of telerehabilitation for long term.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-25

How to Cite

Harishchandre, D. M., & Ganvir, D. S. (2026). Identifying the challenges of 6 months telerehabilitation programme on non-covid patients during Covid -19 through patients’ perception. VIMS Journal of Physical Therapy, 2(2), 85–90. Retrieved from https://www.vimsptcr.in/index.php/VIMSJPT/article/view/114

Issue

Volume 2, Issue 2, 2020

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

1. M Mehrpour, A Shuaib, M Farahani et al (2020), Coronavirus disease 2019 and strokein Iran: a case series and effects on stroke admissions . Int . Journal of Stroke;0(0)1-6.

2. Shalini A, Amukotuwa, Roland Bammer, Julian Maingard(2020), Where have our patients gone? The impact of COVID‐19 on stroke imaging and intervention at an Australian stroke centre. Journal of medical imaging and radiation onchology; 17549485.13093.

3. Anthony C Smith, Emma Thomas, Centaine L Snoswell et al.(2020), Telehealth for global emergencies:Implications for coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19); Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, Vol. 26(5) 309–313.

4. Garcia S, Albaghdadi MS, Meraj PM, et al(2020), Reduction in ST-segment elevation cardiac catheterization laboratory activations in the United States during COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Car-diol 2020 April 9

5. Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, et al.Endovascular thrombectomy after largevessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analy-sis of individual patient data from five randomized trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 1723-31.

6. Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 708-18.

7. Laureen D. Hachem, Christopher S. Ahuja & Michael G.et al (2017), assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: From point of injury to rehabilitation. The journal of spinal cord injury 2017;vol.40 , issue 6; Pages 665-675.

8. Kemal Nas, Levent Yazmalar and Kadriye Öneş et al (2015) Rehabilitation of spinal cord injuries.World J Orthop: 6(1): 8-16.

9. Helene Corriveaua,b, Michel Tousignant et al (2013), Patients Satisfaction with an inHomeTelerehabilitation Exercise Program andPhysiotherapists' Satisfaction toward Technology for an Acute Stroke Population: A Pilot Study. Assistive Technology: From Research to Practice. 978,1:753- 757.

10. Abdullah a. Almojaibel,et al , (2020), health care practitioners' determinants of telerehabilitation acceptance. International journal of telerehabilitation ,vol. 12, no. 1 ; 43-50.

11. Doarn, C. R., Pruitt, S., Jacobs, J., Harris, Y., Bott, D. M., Riley, W., Lamer, C., & Oliver, A. L. (2014). Federal efforts to define and advance telehealth--a work in progress. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 20(5), 409–418.

12. Tim Johansson, Claudia Wild (2011); Telerehabilitation in Stroke Care- a systematic review; Journal of telemedicine and telecare 17; 10, 1-6.

13. Neale R. Chumbler, Patricia Quigley, Xinli Li and etal . (2012) ; Effects of telerehabilitation on physical function and disability for stroke patients: A RCT; Stroke 43 (8), 2168-2174, 2012.

14. ShilpaTyagi, Helena Legido (2018); Acceptance of telerehabilitation by Stroke patients: Perceived Barriers & Facilitatiors; Archieves of PhysicalMedicine and Rehabilitation volume 99, Issue 12, 2472 –2477.

15. Mawadah M Magadmi, Fatemah O Kamel, Rania M Magadmi in 2020 on Patients' Perceptions and Satisfaction Regarding Teleconsultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia;10;21203.