Tele-treatments
Intellectual, speech, and learning disability
Evidence reviewed as of before 20-05-2021
Author(s): Ogourtsova, T. (PhD OT), Osman, G. (MSc OT student), & Dunn, T. (MSc student)
Introduction
For intellectual, speech & learning disabilities, we found 3 studies on tele-treatments. All 3 studies are non-RCTs.These tele-treatments were provided by a psychologist, health educator, and speech-language pathologist. All tele-treatments (100% of studies) targeted to improve child-related outcomes. For instance, interventions focused on child’s social influence, substance abuse prevention, physical activity and speech. Interventions were mainly provided through videoconferencing (66.6% of studies) and clinicians were mainly actively involved in sessions (66.6% of studies).
Nineteen (n=19) different outcomes were studied, and 100% of them emerged from non-RCTs. Telerehabilitation was found to be more effective (vs. another intervention) in improving 57.2% of outcomes.
Proceed to the Clinician information section to find out more.
Clinician information
In this section, you will find a list of outcomes that were examined in the selected studies; whether telerehabilitation was more or as effective (for RCTs) or effective/not effective (for non-RCTs); the comparison intervention (e.g., usual care, if present); and the level of evidence. Find out more about the levels of evidence here.Health education
Results Table For intellectual, speech, and learning disabilities we found 1 study on tele-treatments provided by a health educator. This study was a non-RCT. The focus of the tele-interventions provided by the health educator was to improve child’s physical activity.Four (n=4) different outcomes were studied.
Expand on the outcomes below to find out more.
Daily physical activityEffective5
One non-RCT study (Ptomey et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on daily physical activity among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). This non-RCT study assigned participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (Physical Activity [PA] physical activity in 30-minute sessions, 3 sessions a week for 12 weeks). Daily physical activity was measured by daily steps monitor at post-treatment (12 weeks). A significant improvement was found.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on daily physical activity among adolescents with IDD. However, one non-RCT study found improvements following telerehabilitation.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on daily physical activity among adolescents with IDD. However, one non-RCT study found improvements following telerehabilitation.
WeightEffective 5
One non-RCT study (Ptomey et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on weight among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). This non-RCT study assigned participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (Physical Activity [PA] physical activity in 30-minute sessions, 3 sessions a week for 12 weeks). Weight was measured using a calibrated scale at post-treatment (12 weeks). A significant improvement was found.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on weight among adolescents with IDD. However, one non-RCT study found improvements following telerehabilitation.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on weight among adolescents with IDD. However, one non-RCT study found improvements following telerehabilitation.
Self-efficacy for physical activityNot effective 5
One non-RCT study (Ptomey et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on self-efficacy for physical activity among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). This non-RCT study assigned participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (Physical Activity [PA] physical activity in 30-minute sessions, 3 sessions a week for 12 weeks). Self-efficacy for physical activity was measured by the Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity questionnaire at post-treatment (12 weeks). No significant improvement was found.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on self-efficacy among adolescents with IDD.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on self-efficacy among adolescents with IDD.
Waist circumferenceNot effective 5
One non-RCT study (Ptomey et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on waist circumference among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). This non-RCT study assigned participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (Physical Activity [PA] physical activity in 30-minute sessions, 3 sessions a week for 12 weeks). Waist circumference was measured at post-treatment (12 weeks). No significant improvement was found.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on waist circumference among adolescents with IDD.
Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence (Level 5) regarding the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (PA) on waist circumference among adolescents with IDD.
Psychology
Results Table For intellectual, speech & learning disabilities, we found 1 study on tele-treatments provided by psychologists. This study was a non-RCT. The focus of the tele-interventions provided by psychologists was to improve child’s social influence and the prevention of substance abuse.Fourteen (n=14) different outcomes were studied.
Expand on the outcomes below to find out more.
Alcohol modelling from classmates More effective vs. Usual care2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on alcohol modelling from classmates among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention with a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Alcohol modelling from classmates was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). A significant between-group difference was found, favouring telerehabilitation vs. usual care.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is more effective than the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving alcohol modelling from classmates among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is more effective than the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving alcohol modelling from classmates among youth with ID.
Alcohol modelling from direct environmentMore effective vs. Usual care2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on alcohol modelling from direct environment among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Alcohol modelling from direct environment was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). A significant between-group difference was found, favouring telerehabilitation vs. usual care.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is more effective than the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving alcohol modelling from direct environment among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is more effective than the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving alcohol modelling from direct environment among youth with ID.
Attitude towards alcoholAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on attitude towards alcohol among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Attitude towards alcohol was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving attitude towards alcohol among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving attitude towards alcohol among youth with ID.
Attitude towards smokingAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on attitude towards smoking among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Attitude towards smoking was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving attitude towards smoking among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving attitude towards smoking among youth with ID.
Intention to stop alcohol consumptionAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on intention to stop alcohol consumption among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Intention to stop alcohol was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving intention to stop alcohol consumption among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving intention to stop alcohol consumption among youth with ID.
Intention to stop smokingAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on intention to stop smoking among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention with a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Intention to stop smoking was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving intention to stop smoking in youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving intention to stop smoking in youth with ID.
Knowledge on alcoholAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on knowledge on alcohol among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Knowledge on alcohol was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving knowledge on alcohol among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving knowledge on alcohol among youth with ID.
Knowledge on smokingAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on knowledge on smoking among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Knowledge on smoking was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving knowledge on smoking among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving knowledge on smoking among youth with ID.
Smoking modelling from classmatesAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on smoking modelling from classmates among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Smoking modelling from classmates was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving smoking modelling from classmates among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving smoking modelling from classmates among youth with ID.
Smoking modelling from direct environmentAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on smoking modeling from direct environment among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Smoking modelling from direct environment was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in smoking modelling from direct environment among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in smoking modelling from direct environment among youth with ID.
Social pressure for alcoholAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on social pressure for alcohol among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Social pressure (alcohol) was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving social pressure for alcohol among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving social pressure for alcohol among youth with ID.
Social pressure for smokingAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on social pressure for smoking among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Social pressure (smoking) was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving social pressure for smoking among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving social pressure for smoking among youth with ID.
Subjective norm for alcoholAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on subjective norm for alcohol among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Subjective norm (alcohol) was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving subjective norm for alcohol among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving subjective norm for alcohol among youth with ID.
Subjective norm for smokingAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Kiewik et al., 2017) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on subjective norm for smoking among youth with intellectual disability (ID). This quasi-experimental study randomized participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention in a 2-week program) vs. usual care. Subjective norm (smoking) was measured by self-report questionnaire at follow-up (3 weeks). No significant between-group difference was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving subjective norm for smoking among youth with ID.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (‘Prepared on time’ targeting social influence and substance abuse prevention) is as effective as the comparison intervention (usual care) in improving subjective norm for smoking among youth with ID.
Speech language pathology
Results Table For intellectual disability, speech, and learning disabilities, we found 1 study on tele-treatments provided by speech-language pathologists. This study was a non-RCT. The focus of the tele-interventions provided by psychologists was to improve child’s speech outcomes.One (n=1) outcome was studied.
Expand on the outcome below to find out more.
ArticulationAs effective vs. Usual care 2b
One quasi-experimental study (Grogan-Johnson et al., 2010) investigated the effect of telerehabilitation on articulation among children with language disorders. This quasi-experimental study assigned participants (child/youth alone) to receive telerehabilitation (Telemedicine treatment targeting speech in 2 treatment periods of 4 months each, for a total 8 months) vs. usual care. Articulation was measured by the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation at follow-up (4 months). No significant improvement was found.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (Telemedicine treatment targeting speech) is as effective as usual care in improving articulation among children with language disorders.
Conclusion: There is limited evidence (Level 2b) from one quasi-experimental study that telerehabilitation (Telemedicine treatment targeting speech) is as effective as usual care in improving articulation among children with language disorders.
References
Bekhet, A.K., Positive Thinking Training Intervention for Caregivers of Persons with Autism: Establishing Fidelity. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 2017. 31(3): p. 306-310.
Grogan-Johnson, S., et al., A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of speech language therapy provided by telemedicine with conventional on-site therapy. J Telemed Telecare, 2010. 16(3): p. 134-9.
Kiewik, M., et al., The efficacy of an e-learning prevention program for substance use among adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A pilot study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 2017. 63: p. 160-166.
Ptomey, L.T., et al., The Feasibility of Group Video Conferencing for Promotion of Physical Activity in Adolescents With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 2017. 122(6): p. 525-538.
Patient and family information
Summary for Patients/FamiliesThis is the title
What research is available?
There are 3 studies on different available telerehab-treatments.
How strong is the research behind these treatments?
Unfortunately, the 3 studies found are of low research quality.
Telerehabilitation is an emerging and a rapidly growing field. More high-quality research is on its way. We are dedicated to update the available information with the most recent findings.
Telerehabilitation is an emerging and a rapidly growing field. More high-quality research is on its way. We are dedicated to update the available information with the most recent findings.
Who provides these treatments?
These telerehab-treatments are provided by different specialists including:
• Psychologists
• Health educators
• Speech-Language Pathologists
• Psychologists
• Health educators
• Speech-Language Pathologists
What is the involvement of the clinician in these treatments?
Clinicians are mainly actively involved in these telerehab-treatments. In other words, they are present and engaged with you and/or the child in every therapy session.
How are these treatments provided?
In most cases, telerehab-treatments are provided through videoconferencing by using different platforms (e.g., Skype, Zoom, or other video calls options).
Who receives these treatments?
All telerehab-treatments are provided directly to children with ID. No treatments are provided to the parent alone.
What are the goals of these treatments?
Most of these telerehab-treatments focus on improving child-related outcomes including:
Child’s…
• Social influence
• Substance abuse prevention
• Physical activity
• Speech abilities
• Social influence
• Substance abuse prevention
• Physical activity
• Speech abilities
Does it work?
Yes! Telerehab-treatments are shown to work for children and youth with ID and their families.
For instance, telerehab was shown to be more effective in improving numerous skills and abilities among children than when they receive usual care.
It is important to note that no studies showed that the telerehab-treatments were less effective (than other interventions) or detrimental.
For instance, telerehab was shown to be more effective in improving numerous skills and abilities among children than when they receive usual care.
It is important to note that no studies showed that the telerehab-treatments were less effective (than other interventions) or detrimental.
Are there any side effects/risks?
If your medical and rehabilitation team have cleared you and/or your child to engage in telerehabilitation, there are no specific associated risks or side effects. Your rehabilitation professional will help you and your child to perform the therapy safely and effectively.
However, it is important to relay any concerns and/or questions to your rehabilitation professional because telerehabilitation is a relatively new approach and it is different from the traditional face-to-face method. For instance, sometimes, technical issues (e.g., access to suitable technology such as a computer or a smart phone, internet connection, the platform that is used) might come up.
We encourage you to discuss these and other issues with your rehabilitation specialist to promote best results and optimize your therapy sessions.
However, it is important to relay any concerns and/or questions to your rehabilitation professional because telerehabilitation is a relatively new approach and it is different from the traditional face-to-face method. For instance, sometimes, technical issues (e.g., access to suitable technology such as a computer or a smart phone, internet connection, the platform that is used) might come up.
We encourage you to discuss these and other issues with your rehabilitation specialist to promote best results and optimize your therapy sessions.
How many treatments are necessary to make progress?
On average, improvements were noted following telerehab-treatments that were provided for about 12-16 weeks.
However, every child’s needs and progress journeys, as well as parents’ resources, preferences, and availabilities are different.
In collaboration with your rehabilitation professional, you can determine the duration and frequency of tele-treatments that are most optimal and suitable for you and your child.
However, every child’s needs and progress journeys, as well as parents’ resources, preferences, and availabilities are different.
In collaboration with your rehabilitation professional, you can determine the duration and frequency of tele-treatments that are most optimal and suitable for you and your child.
Is this appropriate for me and my child?
Telerehab could be a great option for certain interventions that are feasible to be delivered and received virtually.
Children with ID aged anywhere from about 4 to 21 years old, and their families, can benefit from telerehab. However, every child’s needs, family’s resources, and progress journeys are different. We encourage that you discuss the appropriateness of telerehabilitation with your health professional.
Children with ID aged anywhere from about 4 to 21 years old, and their families, can benefit from telerehab. However, every child’s needs, family’s resources, and progress journeys are different. We encourage that you discuss the appropriateness of telerehabilitation with your health professional.
Where can I access more detailed information (e.g., that I can share with my child’s health provider)?