Table 5 Results of all the RCTs which explored the effect of mobile app types on adherence to exercise
From: Effect of mobile application types on stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review
| Â | Author, year | Measure | Results | Study conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Therapy apps | Grau-Pellicer et al., 2020 | Ambulation (min/d) | IGA 90.85 ± 83.88, CG 34.00 ± 31.07, p = 0.034 | Statistically significant increases in adherence to ambulation and reduction of sitting time found in the IG compared to the CG |
Sitting time (hours/day) | IGA 4.40 ± 2.22, CG 9.84 ± 5.89, p = 0.012 | |||
Rehab videos | Chung et al., 2020 | Adherence VAS | Base: IG 74.1 ± 24.4, CG 64.1 ± 34.0, p = 0.214 1-month: IG 73.7 ± 21.5, CG 58.6 ± 37.3, p = 0.072 3-months: IG 75.6 ± 26.2, CG 55.2 ± 35.8, p = 0.021 | Mobile video-guided HEP was superior to standard paper-based HEP in terms of exercise adherence for patients recovering from stroke |
Rehab videos + reminders | Emmerson et al., 2017 | % of HEP done/day | IG 62 ± 25, CG 60 ± 28, p = 0.785 | In stroke survivors with upper limb impairment, no group differences in exercise adherence found between the IG and CG |
Min/day doing HEP | IG 34 ± 20, CG 43 ± 38, p = 0.293 | |||
Hours with OT | IG 8.3 ± 6.2, CG 8.0 ± 5.8, p = 0.871 |