Telerehabilitation for Balance Disorders in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Does Therapist Presence Make a Difference?
Saved in:
| Title: | Telerehabilitation for Balance Disorders in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Does Therapist Presence Make a Difference? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Grosserová, Barbora (AUTHOR), Janatová, Markéta (AUTHOR), Horáková, Dana (AUTHOR), Novotná, Klára (AUTHOR), Sellner, Johann (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 7/15/2026, Vol. 2026, p1-12. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Telerehabilitation, Balance disorders, Multiple sclerosis, Physical mobility, Feasibility studies |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Balance impairments are common in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Although traditional rehabilitation can improve balance, telerehabilitation has emerged as a promising alternative. We explored two approaches: an individualized telerehabilitation program using the Homebalance system and a video‐based home exercise program. The objectives were to (1) assess the feasibility and (2) compare preliminary clinical effects. Methods: We conducted a 12‐week randomized feasibility study including pwMS who self‐perceived balance difficulties. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: an individualized telerehabilitation program using the Homebalance system (Group 1), a video‐based home exercise program (Group 2), or a control group with no intervention. Primary outcomes were balance measures assessed using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Single Leg Stance test, the Activities‐Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, and the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES‐I). Secondary outcomes included functional mobility, subjective impact of MS on walking ability, and fatigue measures using the Timed Up and Go (TUG), TUG with cognitive task (TUG cognitive), the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale‐12 (MSWS‐12), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Results: Sixty‐one pwMS (22 in Group 1, 19 in Group 2, and 20 in the control group) completed the study, with no significant baseline differences. Adherence rates were 98.5% in Group 1 and 73.5% in Group 2, with no adverse events reported. After 12 weeks, exploratory analyses showed that Group 1 demonstrated the largest improvements in balance, functional mobility, and subjective impact of MS on walking ability. Conclusion: Both telerehabilitation approaches were feasible, but only the individualized Homebalance program improved balance. It appears that real‐time therapist interaction combined with an interactive balance system may enhance patient adherence and lead to better outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05839977 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Neurologica Scandinavica is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Introduction: Balance impairments are common in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Although traditional rehabilitation can improve balance, telerehabilitation has emerged as a promising alternative. We explored two approaches: an individualized telerehabilitation program using the Homebalance system and a video‐based home exercise program. The objectives were to (1) assess the feasibility and (2) compare preliminary clinical effects. Methods: We conducted a 12‐week randomized feasibility study including pwMS who self‐perceived balance difficulties. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: an individualized telerehabilitation program using the Homebalance system (Group 1), a video‐based home exercise program (Group 2), or a control group with no intervention. Primary outcomes were balance measures assessed using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Single Leg Stance test, the Activities‐Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, and the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES‐I). Secondary outcomes included functional mobility, subjective impact of MS on walking ability, and fatigue measures using the Timed Up and Go (TUG), TUG with cognitive task (TUG cognitive), the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale‐12 (MSWS‐12), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Results: Sixty‐one pwMS (22 in Group 1, 19 in Group 2, and 20 in the control group) completed the study, with no significant baseline differences. Adherence rates were 98.5% in Group 1 and 73.5% in Group 2, with no adverse events reported. After 12 weeks, exploratory analyses showed that Group 1 demonstrated the largest improvements in balance, functional mobility, and subjective impact of MS on walking ability. Conclusion: Both telerehabilitation approaches were feasible, but only the individualized Homebalance program improved balance. It appears that real‐time therapist interaction combined with an interactive balance system may enhance patient adherence and lead to better outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05839977 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00016314 |
| DOI: | 10.1155/ane/3369935 |
