Chumbler 2012

Methods	RCT
Participants	Recruited from 3 Veterans Affairs Medical Centres in the USA Inclusion criteria: ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke within the previous 24 months; participants aged 45 to 90 years, discharged to the community, not cognitively impaired (no more than 4 errors on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire), able to follow a 3‐step command, discharge motor Functional Independence Measure score of 18 to 88, approval by participants and physician; signed medical media release form Exclusion criteria: failure to meet above criteria Age, years: intervention group: mean = 67.1 (SD 9.5), control group: mean = 67.7 (SD 10) Gender: intervention group: 96% male; control group: 100% male Time poststroke: intervention group median 26 days, control group median 74 days
Interventions	Telerehabilitation intervention: the purpose of the intervention was to improve the participant's functional mobility. Intervention included 3 televisits, use of an in‐home messaging device (IHMD) and 5 telephone calls over a 3‐month period. The televisits involved assessment of physical function, goal setting and demonstration of exercises; a research assistant used a camcorder to record the home environment and the participant completing tests of physical and functional performance that were later reviewed by the teletherapist. The therapist asked the participant questions via the IHMD and provided positive encouragement to maximise exercise adherence. Telephone calls were used to problem‐solve any barriers to exercise and to review and advance the exercise programmes Control intervention: usual care
Outcomes	Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, post‐intervention (3 months) and 6 months Measures: motor subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (telephone version), Late Life Function and Disability Instrument, stroke‐specific participant satisfaction with care questionnaire, Falls Self‐Efficacy Scale
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Centralised computer programme
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded outcome assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	ITT analyses completed. Small numbers of missing data, which were explained and balanced across groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The publication does not present the results for all outcome measures listed in the study protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unable to identify further bias