Abstract
Although evidence suggests that community-based PR, home-based PR, telerehabilitation, and web-based rehabilitation are effective alternatives to center-based PR, it requires a careful interpretation as several of these programs do not comply with PR definition and have been compared with center-based PR programs that do not reach the minimal clinically important differences. Moreover, there is a huge heterogeneity among programs, and the confidence and quality of the evidence is mostly low. Hence, these novel modes of PR and center-based PR are not interchangeable. Instead, these are alternative modes aiming to increase access to PR. Questions remain regarding the most efficient way of implementing each PR mode, level of access, reimbursement policies, and data privacy in the use of technology. Standard protocols on how to set up each alternative PR mode need to be developed. Future research needs to explore how to use the treatable traits approach in combination with individual preferences and needs, program availability, safety, social support network, digital literacy, and health system context to identify the optimal PR program for each patient.