Delivery of Allied Health Interventions Using Telehealth Modalities: A Rapid Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether allied health interventions delivered using telehealth provide similar or better outcomes for patients compared with traditional face-to-face delivery modes. Study design: A rapid systematic review using the Cochrane methodology to extract eligible randomized trials. Eligible trials: Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared a comparable dose of face-to-face to telehealth interventions delivered by a neuropsychologist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, podiatrist, psychologist, and/or speech pathologist; reported patient-level outcomes; and included adult participants. Data sources: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases were first searched from inception for systematic reviews and eligible trials were extracted from these systematic reviews. These databases were then searched for randomized clinical trials published after the date of the most recent systematic review search in each discipline (2017). The reference lists of included trials were also hand-searched to identify potentially missed trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1. Data Synthesis: Fifty-two trials (62 reports, n = 4470) met the inclusion criteria. Populations included adults with musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and/or pain. Synchronous and asynchronous telehealth approaches were used with varied modalities that included telephone, videoconferencing, apps, web portals, and remote monitoring, Overall, telehealth delivered similar improvements to face-to-face interventions for knee range, Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, language function, depression, anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This meta-analysis was limited for some outcomes and disciplines such as occupational therapy and speech pathology. Telehealth was safe and similar levels of satisfaction and adherence were found across modes of delivery and disciplines compared to face-to-face interventions. Conclusions: Many allied health interventions are equally as effective as face-to-face when delivered via telehealth. Incorporating telehealth into models of care may afford greater access to allied health professionals, however further comparative research is still required. In particular, significant gaps exist in our understanding of the efficacy of telehealth from podiatrists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and neuropsychologists. Protocol Registration Number: PROSPERO (CRD42020203128).