Measuring technology self efficacy: reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting

Author version made available in accordance with the Publisher's policy.Purpose: To describe a modification of the Computer Self Efficacy Scale for use in clinical settings and to report on the modified scale’s reliability and construct validity. Methods: The Computer Self Efficacy Scale was modified to make it applicable for clinical settings (for use with older people or people with disabilities using everyday technologies). The modified scale was piloted, then tested with patients in an Australian inpatient rehabilitation setting (n=88) to determine the internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed by correlation of the scale with age and technology use. Factor analysis using principal components analysis was undertaken to identify important constructs within the scale. Results: The modified Computer Self Efficacy scale demonstrated high internal consistency with a standardised alpha coefficient of 0.94. Two constructs within the scale were apparent; using the technology alone, and using the technology with the support of others. Scores on the scale were correlated with age and frequency of use of some technologies thereby supporting construct validity. Conclusions: The modified Computer Self Efficacy Scale has demonstrated reliability and construct validity for measuring the self efficacy of older people or people with disabilities when using everyday technologies. This tool has the potential to assist clinicians in identifying older patients who may be more open to using new technologies to maintain independence

Virtual reality stroke rehabilitation – hype or hope?

Author version made in accordance with Publisher copyright policy

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing carer focused and dyadic multicomponent interventions for cares of people with dementia

CC BY-NCObjective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two approaches: multicomponent interventions that focus on working with the carer and dyadic interventions that work with both the carer and the person with dementia. Method: A systematic review involving a search of Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in October 2015 was performed. Randomized controlled trials involving carers of people with dementia and comparing multicomponent interventions with usual care were included. Results: Pooling of all studies demonstrated that multicomponent interventions can reduce depressive symptoms, improve quality of life, reduce carer impact, and reduce behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia as well as caregiver upset with these symptoms. We were unable to find a significant difference in the effects of dyadic interventions in comparison with carer focused interventions for these outcomes. Discussion: Although effect sizes associated with intervention are small, multicomponent interventions are relatively inexpensive to deliver, acceptable, and widely applicable

Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation (review)

Published version made available following 12 month embargo from the date of publication [12 Feb 2015] according to publisher policy. Accessed 10/03/2015. Published version available from 13 February 2016

Interventions to delay functional decline in people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Objective To summarise existing systematic reviews that assess the effects of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and alternative therapies on activities of daily living (ADL) function in people with dementia. Design Overview of systematic reviews. Methods A systematic search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo in April 2015. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials conducted in people with Alzheimer's disease or dementia measuring the impact on ADL function were included. Methodological quality of the systematic reviews was independently assessed by two authors using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of evidence of the primary studies for each intervention was assessed using GRADE. Results A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in the overview. The quality of the reviews varied; however most (65%) scored 8/11 or more on the AMSTAR tool, indicating high quality. Interventions that were reported to be effective in minimising decline in ADL function were: exercise (6 studies, 289 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.27; GRADE: low), dyadic interventions (8 studies, 988 participants, SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.69; GRADE: low) acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine (12 studies, 4661 participants, donepezil 10 mg SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32; GRADE: moderate), selegiline (7 studies, 810 participants, SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.41; GRADE: low), huperzine A (2 studies, 70 participants, SMD 1.48, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.02; GRADE: very low) and Ginkgo biloba (7 studies, 2530 participants, SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.44; GRADE: very low). Conclusions Healthcare professionals should ensure that people with dementia are encouraged to exercise and that primary carers are trained and supported to provide safe and effective care for the person with dementia. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine should be trialled unless contraindicated. Trial registration number CRD42015020179

Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation (Review)

Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This review is made available in accordance with Cochrane Database of Systematic Review's repositories policyBackground Virtual reality and interactive video gaming have emerged as recent treatment approaches in stroke rehabilitation with commercial gaming consoles in particular, being rapidly adopted in clinical settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published first in 2011 and then again in 2015. Objectives Primary objective: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on upper limb function and activity. Secondary objectives: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on: gait and balance, global motor function, cognitive function, activity limitation, participation restriction, quality of life, and adverse events. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registries and reference lists. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised trials of virtual reality ("an advanced form of human‐computer interface that allows the user to 'interact' with and become 'immersed' in a computer‐generated environment in a naturalistic fashion") in adults after stroke. The primary outcome of interest was upper limb function and activity. Secondary outcomes included gait and balance and global motor function. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials based on pre‐defined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated disagreements when required. The review authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information. Main results We included 72 trials that involved 2470 participants. This review includes 35 new studies in addition to the studies included in the previous version of this review. Study sample sizes were generally small and interventions varied in terms of both the goals of treatment and the virtual reality devices used. The risk of bias present in many studies was unclear due to poor reporting. Thus, while there are a large number of randomised controlled trials, the evidence remains mostly low quality when rated using the GRADE system. Control groups usually received no intervention or therapy based on a standard‐care approach. Primary outcome: results were not statistically significant for upper limb function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) ‐0.05 to 0.20, 22 studies, 1038 participants, low‐quality evidence) when comparing virtual reality to conventional therapy. However, when virtual reality was used in addition to usual care (providing a higher dose of therapy for those in the intervention group) there was a statistically significant difference between groups (SMD 0.49, 0.21 to 0.77, 10 studies, 210 participants, low‐quality evidence). Secondary outcomes: when compared to conventional therapy approaches there were no statistically significant effects for gait speed or balance. Results were statistically significant for the activities of daily living (ADL) outcome (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43, 10 studies, 466 participants, moderate‐quality evidence); however, we were unable to pool results for cognitive function, participation restriction, or quality of life. Twenty‐three studies reported that they monitored for adverse events; across these studies there were few adverse events and those reported were relatively mild. Authors' conclusions We found evidence that the use of virtual reality and interactive video gaming was not more beneficial than conventional therapy approaches in improving upper limb function. Virtual reality may be beneficial in improving upper limb function and activities of daily living function when used as an adjunct to usual care (to increase overall therapy time). There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect of virtual reality and interactive video gaming on gait speed, balance, participation, or quality of life. This review found that time since onset of stroke, severity of impairment, and the type of device (commercial or customised) were not strong influencers of outcome. There was a trend suggesting that higher dose (more than 15 hours of total intervention) was preferable as were customised virtual reality programs; however, these findings were not statistically significant

Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Publisher version made available in accordance with the publisher's policy. This item is under embargo for a period of 12 months from the date of publication, in accordance with the publisher's policy. 'This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.’Background Telerehabilitation is an alternative way of delivering rehabilitation services. Information and communication technologies are used to facilitate communication between the healthcare professional and the patient in a remote location. The use of telerehabilitation is becoming more viable as the speed and sophistication of communication technologies improve. However, it is currently unclear how effective this model of delivery is relative to rehabilitation delivered face-to-face. Objectives To determine whether the use of telerehabilitation leads to improved ability to perform activities of daily living amongst stroke survivors when compared with (1) in-person rehabilitation (when the clinician and the patient are at the same physical location and rehabilitation is provided face-to-face); or (2) no rehabilitation. Secondary objectives were to determine whether use of telerehabilitation leads to greater independence in self care and domestic life and improved mobility, health-related quality of life, upper limb function, cognitive function or functional communication when compared with in-person rehabilitation and no rehabilitation. Additionally, we aimed to report on the presence of adverse events, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and levels of user satisfaction associated with telerehabilitation interventions. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (November 2012), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Trials Register (November 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2012), EMBASE (1980 to November 2012) and eight additional databases. We searched trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of telerehabilitation in stroke. We included studies that compared telerehabilitation with in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. In addition, we synthesised and described the results of RCTs that compared two different methods of delivering telerehabilitation services without an alternative group. We included rehabilitation programmes that used a combination of telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation provided that the greater proportion of intervention was provided via telerehabilitation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified trials on the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated any disagreements. The review authors contacted investigators to ask for missing information. Main results We included in the review 10 trials involving a total of 933 participants. The studies were generally small, and reporting quality was often inadequate, particularly in relation to blinding of outcome assessors and concealment of allocation. Selective outcome reporting was apparent in several studies. Study interventions and comparisons varied, meaning that in most cases, it was inappropriate to pool studies. Intervention approaches included upper limb training, lower limb and mobility retraining, case management and caregiver support. Most studies were conducted with people in the chronic phase following stroke. Primary outcome: no statistically significant results for independence in activities of daily living (based on two studies with 661 participants) were noted when a case management intervention was evaluated. Secondary outcomes: no statistically significant results for upper limb function (based on two studies with 46 participants) were observed when a computer programme was used to remotely retrain upper limb function. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the effects of the intervention on mobility, health-related quality of life or participant satisfaction with the intervention. No studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation. No studies reported on the occurrence of adverse events within the studies. Authors' conclusions We found insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of telerehabilitation after stroke. Moreover, we were unable to find any randomised trials that included an evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Which intervention approaches are most appropriately adapted to a telerehabilitation approach remain unclear, as does the best way to utilise this approach