Introduction to Telerehabilitation

  • David M. BrienzaEmail author
  • Michael McCue
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Telerehabilitation (TR) is an important subdiscipline of telemedicine. Although its history is relatively brief compared to other areas of telemedicine, it has quickly emerged as an area of practice where communication and information technology can have a large positive impact on the health and well-being of those capitalizing on its advantages. Comparison of TR with traditional, in-person rehabilitation service reveals that costs may be reduced and the effectiveness may be improved with use of TR. The potential for improvements and cost reductions are particularly high for rehabilitation services that involve prolonged interventions, as is the case for people with permanent disabilities and chronic conditions, or who are context or environmentally sensitive, such as in vocational and educational applications. This chapter summarizes the development of TR as a discipline, describes its current scope and its position relative to other telemedicine disciplines.


Social Networking Site Electronic Health Record Vocational Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Service Global Disease Burden 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Al-Khalifa HS, Al-Salman AS. From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: is the Web becoming more accessible for people with visual impairments? In: International conference on information integration and web-based applications, Austrian Computer Society, Yogyakarta, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bashshur RL. Telemedicine and health care. Telemed J E Health. 2002;8(1):5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caplan GA, Coconis J, Board N, et al. Does home treatment affect delirium? A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation of elderly and care at home or usual treatment (The REACH-OUT trial). Age Ageing. 2006;35(1):53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):370–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2249–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cormode G, Krishnamurthy B. Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday. 2008;13(6).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Beurs E, van Balkom AJ, Lange A, et al. Treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia: comparison of fluvoxamine, placebo, and psychological panic management combined with exposure and of exposure in vivo alone. Am J Psychiatry. 1995;152(5):683–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng X, Winters JM. An interactive framework for personalized computer-assisted neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2007;11(5):518–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heuser A, Kourtev H, Winter S, et al. Telerehabilitation using the Rutgers Master II glove following carpal tunnel release surgery: proof-of-concept. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(1):43–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill AJ, Theodoros DG, Russell TG, et al. An internet-based telerehabilitation system for the assessment of motor speech disorders: a pilot study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;15(1):45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoenig H, Sanford JA, Butterfield T, et al. Development of a teletechnology protocol for in-home rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(2):287–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    In-Stat. Size and growth of smartphone market will exceed laptop market for next five years. 2007. Available at: Accessed 18 Oct 2011.
  13. 13.
    Kaplan B, Litewka S. Ethical challenges of telemedicine and telehealth. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17(4):401–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuipers P, Foster M, Smith S, et al. Using ICF – environment factors to enhance the continuum of outpatient ABI rehabilitation: an exploratory study. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(2):144–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legg L, Langhorne P. Therapy-based rehabilitation for stroke patients living at home. Stroke. 2004;35(4):1022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mersch PP. The treatment of social phobia: the differential effectiveness of exposure in vivo and an integration of exposure in vivo, rational emotive therapy and social skills training. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):259–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Reilly T. What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Network; 2005. Available at:
  18. 18.
    Ost L-G, Thulin U, Ramnerö J. Cognitive behavior therapy vs exposure in vivo in the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Behav Res Ther. 2004;42(10):1105–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parmanto B, Saptono A. Telerehabilitation: state-of-the-art from an informatics perspective. Int J Telerehabil. 2008;1(1):73–84 (Special Prepublication Issue).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Placidi G. A smart virtual glove for the hand telerehabilitation. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 37(8):1100–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ. 2001;165(6):765–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell TG. Telerehabilitation: a coming of age. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(1):5–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salaberria K, Echeburua E. Long-term outcome of cognitive therapy’s contribution to self exposure in vivo to the treatment of generalized social phobia. Behav Modif. 1998;22(3):262–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scalvini S, Vitacca M, Paletta L, et al. Telemedicine: a new frontier for effective healthcare services. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2004;61(4):226–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seelman KD. Converging, pervasive technologies: chronic and emerging issues and policy adequacy. Assist Technol. 2008;20(3):126–37. quiz 138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seelman KD, Hartman L. Telerehabilitation: policy issues and research tools. Int J Telerehabil (Special Prepublication Issue). 2008:37–48.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stalnacke BM. Community integration, social support and life satisfaction in relation to symptoms 3 years after mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2007;21(9):933–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theodoros D, Russell T. Telerehabilitation: current perspectives. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;131:191–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vlaeyen JW, de Jong J, Geilen M, et al. Graded exposure in vivo in the treatment of pain-related fear: a replicated single-case experimental design in four patients with chronic low back pain. Behav Res Ther. 2001;39(2):151–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vlaeyen JWS, de Jong J, Geilen M, et al. The treatment of fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: further evidence on the effectiveness of exposure in vivo. Clin J Pain. 2002;18(4):251–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vlaeyen JWS, De Jong JR, Onghena P, et al. Can pain-related fear be reduced? The application of cognitive-behavioural exposure in vivo. Pain Res Manag. 2002;7(3):144–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    von Koch L, Wottrich AW, Holmqvist LW. Rehabilitation in the home versus the hospital: the importance of context. Disabil Rehabil. 1998;20(10):367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ware NC, Hopper K, Tugenberg T, et al. A theory of social integration as quality of life. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(1):27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weinstein RS, Lopeez AM, Krupinski EA, et al. Integrating telemedicine and telehealth: putting it all together. In: Current principles and practices of telemedicine and e-health. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2008. p. 23–38.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    WHO. Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action: global report. Geneva: WHO Health Care for Chronic Conditions Team, World Health Organization; 2002. p. 1–99.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Widen Holmqvist L, von Koch L, Kostulas V, et al. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm. Stroke. 1998;29(3):591–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willer B, Corrigan JD. Whatever it takes: a model for community-based services. Brain Inj. 1994;8(7):647–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Winters JM. Telerehabilitation research: emerging opportunities. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2002;4:287–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wipf KR, Langner B. Policy approaches to chronic disease management. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2006;18:452–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ylvisaker M. Context-sensitive cognitive rehabilitation: theory and practice. Brain Impairment. 2003;4(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zitrin CM, Klein DF, Woerner MG. Treatment of agoraphobia with group exposure in vivo and imipramine. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980;37(1):63–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RERC on TelerehabilitationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations