Phantom limb pain following amputation is highly prevalent as it affects up to 80% of amputees. Many amputees suffer from phantom limb pain for many years and experience major limitations in daily routines and quality of life. Conventional pharmacological interventions often have negative side-effects and evidence regarding their long-term efficacy is low. Central malplasticity such as the invasion of areas neighbouring the cortical representation of the amputated limb contributes to the occurrence and maintenance of phantom limb pain. In this context, alternative, non-pharmacological interventions such as mirror therapy that are thought to target these central mechanisms have gained increasing attention in the treatment of phantom limb pain. However, a standardized evidence-based treatment protocol for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain is lacking, and evidence for its effectiveness is still low. Furthermore, given the chronic nature of phantom limb pain and suggested central malplasticity, published studies proposed that patients should self-deliver mirror therapy over several weeks to months to achieve sustainable effects. To achieve this training intensity, patients need to perform self-delivered exercises on a regular basis, which could be facilitated though the use of information and communication technology such as telerehabilitation. However, little is known about potential benefits of using telerehabilitation in patients with phantom limb pain, and controlled clinical trials investigating effects are lacking. The present thesis presents the findings from the ‘PAtient Centered Telerehabilitation’ (PACT) project, which was conducted in three consecutive phases: 1) creating a theoretical foundation; 2) modelling the intervention; and 3) evaluating the intervention in clinical practice. The objectives formulated for the three phases of the PACT project were: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding important clinical aspects of mirror therapy. It focused on the evidence of applying mirror therapy in patients with stroke, complex regional pain syndrome and phantom limb pain. 2) to design and develop a clinical framework and a user-centred telerehabilitation for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain following lower limb amputation. 3) to evaluate the effects of the clinical framework for mirror therapy and the additional effects of the teletreatment in patients with phantom limb pain. It also investigated whether the interventions were delivered by patients and therapists as intended.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
