Telerehabilitation versus in-person therapy for work-related injuries: adjusted comparative outcomes in Italian routine care.

Abstract

Compare telerehabilitation with in-person therapy for work-related injuries in Italian routine care using the STRF as the primary outcome. A 29-month retrospective cohort included sub-acute patients treated by telerehabilitation (<i>n</i> = 107) or in-person therapy (<i>n</i> = 117). Post-treatment STRF was analyzed by ANCOVA adjusted for baseline STRF, age, sex, anatomical site, surgical status, and calendar period. Secondary outcomes were responder status (ΔSTRF ≥1; adjusted logistic regression) and pain (NPRS; ANCOVA adjusted for baseline NPRS). Sensitivity analyses excluded surgical cases; an exploratory treatment × period interaction was tested. The STRF, developed and validated in Italy, was used as a context-specific measure. Adjusted models showed no between-group differences for post-treatment STRF or NPRS. Responder odds did not differ, and patterns suggesting slower early recovery among patients with low baseline STRF in unadjusted summaries attenuated after adjustment. Magnetotherapy was not independently associated with outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were consistent. In Italian routine care for work-related injuries, telerehabilitation and in-person therapy showed no adjusted differences in functional or pain outcomes at discharge. These findings should be interpreted given the retrospective, nonrandomized design, period effects, surgical imbalance, and the Italy-specific validation of STRF. Prospective studies with cross-cultural validation and longer-term (including return-to-work) outcomes are warranted.