Currently submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Nov 20, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 20, 2025 - Jan 15, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Telerehabilitation in Community Stroke Services: A mixed-methods evaluation of current practice and lessons for sustained use
ABSTRACT
Background:
The delivery of specialist stroke rehabilitation is undergoing significant transformation, with telerehabilitation and remote working increasingly integrated into clinical practice and supported by guidelines and policy. While the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the rapid adoption of these delivery methods, there is growing recognition of the requirement for pragmatic evaluation within existing service frameworks to inform sustained use. Evaluation that includes insights from clinical teams and individuals with lived experience of stroke is needed to deepen understanding and inform future service development. This evaluation sought to address that need, in the context of community stroke services in the East of England.
Objective:
Our evaluation addressed two over-arching aims: (1) To map contemporary models and experiences of telerehabilitation delivery in community stroke services, examining how it is currently used and perceived by both healthcare providers and service-users; and, (2) To identify practical lessons and enabling factors that support the sustained integration of telerehabilitation into routine community stroke services.
Methods:
This exploratory sequential mixed-methods evaluation comprised two phases. Phase one involved discussion groups with stakeholders already using telerehabilitation to explore experiences, attitudes, influences, and behaviours associated with its use. These findings were synthesised with published literature and guidelines to produce a conceptual framework, which was then used to inform the design and content of a broader online survey in Phase two. Data from the discussion groups were analysed using a recognised framework for reflexive thematic analysis within a contextualist approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise quantitative survey responses.
Results:
A total of 20 people attended the discussion groups (n=4 groups total). 96 people responded to the survey. Three themes underpinning successful use of telerehabilitation in this context were derived from triangulation across our data sources: 1) consideration of risks and benefits, 2) the importance of individualised care approaches and, 3) the need for staff support. Deep insights were gained within themes and are reported here- e.g. the potential for telerehabilitation to increase efficiency and address service pressures, the importance of addressing digital exclusion and the need for timely and tailored staff training.
Conclusions:
Our pragmatic, in-service evaluation demonstrates that telerehabilitation works best not as a replacement for in-person care, but as part of a responsive, blended approach grounded in individual need. These findings highlight that, with appropriate clinician training and flexibility in delivery remote rehabilitation can meet the needs of diverse individuals through personalised approaches whilst supporting service responsiveness in pressurised clinical environments. Clinical Trial: N/A
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.