Comparing in-clinic versus telehealth for vestibular physical therapy

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Kriz, Morgan^{a; *} | Conover, Sarah^{b; c} | Cameron, Nicholas^d | Conover, Meg^e | Simon, Janet^f | Prueter, James^g | Samy, Ravi^h | Backous, Douglasⁱ

Affiliations: [a] Vestibular Therapy Specialists, Seattle, WA, USA | [b] Sarah Conover and Associates, LLC, Troy, OH, USA | [c] Xcel Sports Medicine, Vandalia, OH, USA | [d] Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Kettering Health Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA | [e] Doctors Hospital Family Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA | [f] College of Applied Health Sciences and Wellness, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA | [g] Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Southwest Ohio ENT, Dayton, OH, USA | [h] Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA, USA | [i] Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Puget Sound ENT, Edmonds, WA, USA

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Morgan Kriz, DPT, 10564 5th Ave NE, Suite 405 Seattle, WA 98125, USA. Tel.: +1 530 220 2187; E-mail: morgan@vestibularspecialists.com.

Abstract: BACKGROUND:Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is a commonly employed treatment method for disorders of dizziness and imbalance. Access to a clinic for rehabilitation appointments can be challenging for a person experiencing dizziness. Telehealth may offer a comparable alternative to clinic-based VR for some patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of telehealth-based VR compared to traditional clinic-based VR, as measured with the Dizziness Handicapped Inventory (DHI) in a retrospective sample of patients with vestibular conditions. METHODS:This is a retrospective, multi-institutional review from May 2020 to January 2021. Three study groups were analyzed: a telehealth group, a hybrid group, and a clinic based control group. Treatment efficacy was measured using the DHI. A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed to compare changes between the groups and across timepoints. RESULTS:The repeated measures ANCOVA was not significant for the interaction of groups (control, telehealth, and hybrid) by time (pre and post) (p > 0.05). However, there was a significant main effect for time (pre and post) (p < 0.05). Specifically, all groups improved DHI scores from pre to post treatment with mean differences of control: 31.85 points, telehealth: 18.75 points, and hybrid: 21.45 points. CONCLUSION:Findings showed that in-clinic, telehealth, and hybrid groups demonstrated a decrease in DHI scores, indicating self-reported improvements in the impact of dizziness on daily life. Continued research is recommended to explore the efficacy of using telehealth in assessing and treating vestibular conditions.

Keywords: Vestibular rehabilitation, dizziness, telehealth, Dizziness Handicap Inventory

DOI: 10.3233/VES-220094

Journal: Journal of Vestibular Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 215-222, 2024