Overview of systematic reviews shows limited evidence for telerehabilitation and advanced physiotherapy in spinal pain, stroke.

Background Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme have collaborated to produce four Cochrane overviews of systematic reviews synthesizing evidence from health policy and systems research (HPSR) in rehabilitation. Each overview focuses on one of the four HPSR pillars identified by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy: delivery, financial, and governance arrangements; and implementation strategies. This overview addresses delivery arrangements, which Cochrane EPOC defines as how health services are organized and delivered, including who provides care, how care is coordinated and managed, and where services are provided. Objectives This overview aimed to synthesize current evidence on delivery arrangements in rehabilitation from an HPSR perspective. Our series of four overviews has the following overarching objectives. • To offer a broad synthesis of existing evidence on health policy and systems interventions' effects.• To direct end‐users, including policymakers, towards systematic reviews that may address their health policy questions.• To identify current research gaps and set priorities for future primary HPSR.• To pinpoint needs and priorities for new evidence syntheses where no reliable, up‐to‐date systematic reviews currently exist. Methods We searched Epistemonikos Health Systems Evidence databases and EPOC Group systematic reviews with no language limitations to identify reviews published between 2015 and 17 November 2024. We included Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non‐CSRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) evaluating the effectiveness of health policy and systems interventions for rehabilitation in health systems, specifically related to delivery arrangements as defined in the EPOC taxonomy. All four overview teams screened reviews and extracted data. We used AMSTAR 2 to critically appraise the reviews, and we analyzed the results descriptively. Main results We included 25 systematic reviews. Three overlapped, and for 17 the AMSTAR 2 rating was low or critically low confidence. Five systematic reviews (2 CSRs and 3 non‐CSRs) contributed to our synthesis. Most outcomes focused on patients, caregivers, or service use (e.g. access to rehabilitation). Equity‐related outcomes were absent, and quality of care, adverse events, and our important outcomes were rarely reported. Below, we report the results of three of the five reviews judged to have moderate to high confidence for our outcomes of interest, in which authors conducted meta‐analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence. Who provides care One review analyzed advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models, which may result in little to no difference in health‐related outcomes measured by the Pain Disability Index and EuroQol 5‐Dimension questionnaire after the intervention, compared with usual care in adults with spinal pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.32 to 0.42; 2 studies, 225 participants; low certainty). Information and communication technology We included two reviews in this category. One compared telerehabilitation with usual care in older adults, finding that telerehabilitation may have little or no effect on quality of life after seven to 20 weeks (SMD −0.09, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.40; 3 studies, 179 participants; low certainty). There was very low‐certainty evidence on mobility after seven to 26 weeks (SMD 0.63, 95% CI −0.25 to 1.51; 5 studies, 302 participants), strength after 12 and 26 weeks (SMD 0.73, 95% CI −0.10 to 1.56; 4 studies, 226 participants), and balance after seven to 26 weeks (SMD 0.40, 95% CI −0.35 to 1.15; 3 studies, 199 participants). Another review on stroke survivors living in the community found that telerehabilitation compared with usual care probably has little or no effect on independence in activities of daily living (ADL) after 24 weeks (SMD 0.00, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.15; 2 studies, 661 participants; moderate certainty), self‐reported quality of life after six to 24 weeks (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.20; 3 studies, 569 participants; moderate certainty), and depression after six to 24 weeks (SMD −0.04, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.11; 6 studies, 1145 participants; moderate certainty); and may have little or no effect on upper limb function after 12 weeks (SMD 0.33, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.87; 2 studies, 54 participants; low certainty) and mobility after six weeks (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.14; 1 study; 144 participants; low certainty). This review also compared telerehabilitation with in‐person rehabilitation and found that there may be little to no difference in independence in ADL, measured with the Modified Barthel Index at four to 12 weeks (MD 0.59, 95% CI −5.50 to 6.68; 2 studies, 75 participants; low certainty); balance, measured with the Berg Balance Scale at four to 12 weeks (MD 0.48, 95% CI −1.36 to 2.32; 3 studies, 106 participants; low certainty); and upper limb function, evaluated with the Fugl‐Meyer Assessment (Upper Extremity) four weeks after intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI −2.17 to 4.64; 3 studies, 170 participants; low certainty). Authors' conclusions Current evidence on delivery arrangements in rehabilitation is limited, mostly of low certainty, and derived from high‐income countries. Reviews covered five EPOC categories, but reliable evidence for our outcomes of interest was available for only two categories. Most evidence was on telerehabilitation. Compared with usual care, APP models may have little to no effect on health outcomes in adults with spinal pain. In people with stroke, telerehabilitation compared with usual care probably has little or no effect on independence in daily living, quality of life, and depression, and may have little to no effect on upper limb function and mobility. Compared with in‐person care, telerehabilitation may have little to no effect on ADL, balance, and upper limb function. Further high‐quality research using well‐defined frameworks is needed, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries, to identify effective strategies and evaluate organizational, implementation, and equity outcomes. Future Cochrane overviews in HPSR should consider a broader range of study designs, such as observational, qualitative, and mixed‐design evidence, to better capture evidence on delivery arrangements in rehabilitation. Funding PC, CK, and SN were supported and funded by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Registration Protocol (2025): DOI 10.23736/S1973‐9087.24.08833‐6. PICOs PICOs Population Intervention Comparison Outcome