For someone recovering from an injury or managing a health condition, attending rehabilitation can require more than physical effort. There may be transport to arrange, time to set aside and repeated journeys to a healthcare facility, all while the person is trying to regain strength and independence.
Yughdtheswari Muniandy, Clinical Instructor at the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, INTI International University, was the first author of a study examining patients’ and caregivers’ experiences with telerehabilitation.
Telerehabilitation allows some rehabilitation services to be delivered remotely. Using a smartphone, tablet or computer, patients may join live sessions with a therapist, receive feedback or access exercises and other materials from home.
Although this can make rehabilitation easier to access, the experience depends on more than convenience. Patients must also be able to use the technology, participate effectively from home and maintain a meaningful connection with their therapist.
These considerations were examined in “A Meta-Synthesis on Clients’ Experience with Telerehabilitation,” a study involving researchers from Malaysia, India and the Philippines.
The first author was Yughdtheswari Muniandy, Clinical Instructor at the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, INTI International University. The research team also included INTI-affiliated researchers Rajkumar Krishnan Vasanthi and Thenmoly Subramaniam.
“I was inspired to explore this topic because telerehabilitation is not just about delivering care remotely but understanding how people experience it,” said Yughdtheswari.
Telerehabilitation can reduce the need for repeated travel by allowing patients to receive guidance, feedback and rehabilitation materials remotely.
“I wanted to identify what helps patients engage with telerehabilitation and what challenges they face, so that future services can be more accessible and patient centered.”
Rather than conducting new patient interviews, the researchers reviewed existing qualitative studies that documented people’s experiences with telerehabilitation. They searched eight electronic databases and selected 26 studies from 1,667 records for the final analysis.
The studies covered different areas of rehabilitation, including physiotherapy, speech therapy and rehabilitation for neurological and cardiac conditions. Four main themes emerged: access and reduced burden, efficiency and continuity of care, the relationship between patients and therapists, and the challenges created by technology and the home environment.
One of the clearest benefits was the reduced need to travel. Across the studies, participants spoke about saving time and money, avoiding physically demanding journeys and arranging rehabilitation around work and family responsibilities. This was particularly valuable for people living far from healthcare facilities and those with mobility limitations.
Remote sessions also allowed some patients to fit rehabilitation into their daily routines and continue receiving support from healthcare providers. Having greater flexibility could make treatment easier to manage, although views on its effectiveness were mixed. Some participants found it harder to remain motivated or concentrate at home, while the lack of hands-on assessment or assistance limited certain forms of rehabilitation.
The change in setting did not lessen the importance of the relationship between patients and therapists. Even through a screen, participants valued trust, clear communication, encouragement and the feeling that their therapist remained involved in their recovery.
Family members and caregivers also supported participation by helping with the technology, providing encouragement or assisting with exercises.
At the same time, the technology intended to improve access could become a barrier. Poor internet connections, unfamiliar software and limited confidence in using digital devices could interrupt sessions or make them frustrating. Some patients needed technical support before they could participate comfortably.
Their surroundings also shaped the experience. Not everyone had enough space, suitable equipment, or a private, distraction-free place for rehabilitation. These differences meant that telerehabilitation was not equally accessible or appropriate for every patient.
The review found that trust, communication and emotional support remained important to patients even when rehabilitation took place through a screen.
Taken together, the findings show that successful telerehabilitation involves more than providing a video link or sending exercises online. Its suitability depends on the patient’s clinical needs, ability to use the technology, home environment and access to appropriate support.
Telerehabilitation does not have to replace face-to-face care. Instead, it can provide another way for patients to receive rehabilitation when it suits their needs and circumstances. Understanding both its advantages and limitations can help healthcare providers decide when it is appropriate and what support patients may need to benefit from it.