You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Multicomponent telerehabilitation programme for older veterans with multimorbidity: a programme evaluation

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Multicomponent telerehabilitation programme for older veterans with multimorbidity: a programme evaluation
  1. Michelle R Rauzi1,
  2. L M Abbate2,3,
  3. H D Lum4,
  4. P F Cook5 and
  5. J E Stevens-Lapsley1,2
  1. 1Physical Therapy Program, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  2. 2VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  3. 3Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  4. 4Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  5. 5College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michelle R Rauzi, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; michelle.rauzi{at}cuanschutz.edu

Abstract

Introduction Older veterans with multimorbidity experience physical, mental and social factors which may negatively impact health and healthcare access. Physical function, behaviour change skills and loneliness may not be addressed during traditional physical rehabilitation. Thus, a multicomponent telerehabilitation programme could address these unmet needs. This programme evaluation assessed the safety, feasibility and change in patient outcomes for a multicomponent telerehabilitation programme.

Methods Individuals were eligible if they were a veteran/spouse, age ≥50 years and had ≥3 comorbidities. The telerehabilitation programme included four core components: (1) High-intensity rehabilitation, (2) Coaching interventions, (3) Social support and (4) Technology. Physical therapists delivered the 12-week programme and collected patient outcomes at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks. Programme evaluation measures included safety events (occurrence and type), feasibility (adherence) and patient outcomes (physical function). Safety and feasibility outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics. The mean pre-post programme difference and 95% CI for patient outcomes were generated using paired t-tests.

Results Twenty-one participants enrolled in the telerehabilitation programme; most were male (81%), white (72%) and non-Hispanic (76%), with an average of 5.7 (3.0) comorbidities. Prevalence of insession safety events was 3.2% (0.03 events/session). Fifteen (71.4%) participants adhered to the programme (attended ≥80% of sessions). Mean (95% CI) improvements for physical function are as follows: 4.7 (2.4 to 7.0) repetitions for 30 s sit to stand, 6.0 (4.0 to 9.0) and 5.0 (2.0 to 9.0) repetitions for right arm curl and left arm curl, respectively, and 31.8 (15.9 to 47.7) repetitions for the 2 min step test.

Conclusion The telerehabilitation programme was safe, feasible and demonstrated preprogramme to postprogramme improvements in physical function measures while addressing unmet needs in a vulnerable population. These results support a randomised clinical trial while informing programme and process adaptations.

  • Telemedicine
  • REHABILITATION MEDICINE
  • GERIATRIC MEDICINE
  • Health & safety

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/military-2023-002535

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MR contributed to the programme’s conception and design; data acquisition, analysis and interpretation; and drafting and revision of the manuscript. LMA contributed to the programme’s conception and design, data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. HDL contributed to the programme’s conception and design, data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. PFC contributed to the programme’s conception and design, training programme staff and critical revision of the manuscript. JES-L contributed to the programme’s conception and design, data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. JES-L acts as guarantor and is responsible for the overall content.

    • Funding This programme evaluation was funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Connected Care (N/A). Dr. Rauzi was supported in part by a Promotion of Doctoral Studies I Scholarship from the Foundation for Physical Therapy Research. She was also supported in part by NIH Research Training Grant T32AG000279 funded by The National Institute on Aging (NIA).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.