Objective: To evaluate the delivery, acceptance and experiences regarding a traditional and teletreatment approach to mirror therapy as delivered in a randomized controlled trial. Design: Mixed methods, prospective study. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with phantom pain following lower limb amputation and their treating physical and occupational therapists. Interventions: All patients received 4 weeks of traditional mirror therapy (n=51), followed by 6 weeks of teletreatment (n=26) or 6 weeks of self-delivered mirror therapy (n=25). Main measures: Patient files, therapist logs, log files teletreatment, acceptance questionnaire and interviews with patients and their therapists. Results: In all, 51 patients and 10 therapists participated in the process evaluation. Only 16 patients (31%) received traditional mirror therapy according to the clinical framework during the first 4 weeks. Between weeks 5 and 10, the teletreatment was used by 14 patients (56%) with sufficient dose. Teletreatment usage decreased from a median number of 31 (weeks 5–10) to 19 sessions (weeks 11–24). Satisfactory teletreatment user acceptance rates were found with patients demonstrating higher scores (e.g. regarding the usefulness to control pain) than therapists. Potential barriers for implementation of the teletreatment perceived by patients and therapists were related to insufficient training and support as well as the frequency of technical problems. Conclusion: Traditional mirror therapy and the teletreatment were not delivered as intended in the majority of patients. Implementation of the teletreatment in daily routines was challenging, and more research is needed to evaluate user characteristics that influence adherence and how technology features can be optimized to develop tailored implementation strategies.
Background: Phantom limb pain is a frequent and persistent problem following amputation. Achieving sustainable favorable effects on phantom limb pain requires therapeutic interventions such as mirror therapy that target maladaptive neuroplastic changes in the central nervous system. Unfortunately, patients’ adherence to unsupervised exercises is generally poor and there is a need for effective strategies such as telerehabilitation to support long-term self-management of patients with phantom limb pain. Objective: The main aim of this study was to describe the user-centered approach that guided the design and development of a telerehabilitation platform for patients with phantom limb pain. We addressed 3 research questions: (1) Which requirements are defined by patients and therapists for the content and functions of a telerehabilitation platform and how can these requirements be prioritized to develop a first prototype of the platform? (2) How can the user interface of the telerehabilitation platform be designed so as to match the predefined critical user requirements and how can this interface be translated into a medium-fidelity prototype of the platform? (3) How do patients with phantom limb pain and their treating therapists judge the usability of the medium-fidelity prototype of the telerehabilitation platform in routine care and how can the platform be redesigned based on their feedback to achieve a high-fidelity prototype?
Objective: To compare the effects of traditional mirror therapy (MT), a patient-centred teletreatment (PACT) and sensomotor exercises without a mirror on phantom limb pain (PLP). Design: Three-arm multicentre randomized controlled trial. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with unilateral lower limb amputation and average PLP intensity of at least 3 on the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Interventions: Subjects randomly received either four weeks of traditional MT followed by a teletreatment using augmented reality MT, traditional MT followed by self-delivered MT or sensomotor exercises of the intact limb without a mirror followed by self-delivered exercises. Main measures: Intensity, frequency and duration of PLP and patient-reported outcomes assessing limitations in daily life at baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks and 6 months. Results: In total, 75 patients received traditional MT (n = 25), teletreatment (n = 26) or sensomotor exercises (n = 24). Mean (SD) age was 61.1 (14.2) years and mean (SD) pain intensity was 5.7 (2.1) on the NRS. Effects of MT at four weeks on PLP were not significant. MT significantly reduced the duration of PLP at six months compared to the teletreatment (P = 0.050) and control group (P = 0.019). Subgroup analyses suggested significant effects on PLP in women, patients with telescoping and patients with a motor component in PLP. The teletreatment had no additional effects compared to self-delivered MT at 10 weeks and 6 months. Conclusion: Traditional MT over four weeks was not more effective than sensomotor exercises without a mirror in reducing PLP, although significant effects were suggested in some subgroups.
