Banca de DEFESA: RAISSA SOUZA TAVEIRA

Uma banca de DEFESA de DOUTORADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : RAISSA SOUZA TAVEIRA
DATE: 31/10/2025
TIME: 14:00
LOCAL: Remoto
TITLE:

TELEREHABILITATION AND IN-PERSON PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR PEOPLE WITH PARKINSON'S DISEASE: QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA FROM A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

KEY WORDS:

Technology-Based Rehabilitation; Exercise Therapy; Adherence to treatment;
Quality of Life; Qualitative research.

 

PAGES: 163
BIG AREA: Ciências da Saúde
AREA: Fisioterapia e Terapia Ocupacional
SUMMARY:

Introduction: Physiotherapy plays a central role in the management of
Parkinson’s Disease (PD), contributing to the reduction of motor and non-
motor symptoms and to the promotion of quality of life. In recent years,
telerehabilitation (TR) has emerged as an alternative or complement to in-
person physiotherapy (IP), enhancing access, continuity of care, and
overcoming geographical and logistical barriers. Objective: To analyze the
effects of TR compared with IP in individuals with PD, considering quantitative
clinical outcomes, adherence, safety, and participants’ subjective
experiences. Methods: A randomized, single-blind clinical trial was
conducted with a 16-week group physiotherapy protocol, delivered either in
person or remotely. Assessments were performed at four time points
(baseline, 8, 16, and 24 weeks), using validated instruments to measure
motor symptoms (MDS-UPDRS III), quality of life (PDQ-39), cognition
(MoCA), balance and functional mobility (TUG, FGA). Session adherence and
adverse events were systematically monitored. Additionally, a qualitative
study was carried out two months after the interventions through semi-
structured interviews, analyzed according to Bardin’s Content Analysis.
Results: Both TR and IP led to clinical improvements in motor and non-motor
symptoms, with no significant global differences between groups. However,
distinct benefits were observed in specific domains such as mobility, activities
of daily living, and gait. Adherence rates were high in both models, and no
serious adverse events were reported. Qualitative analysis revealed positive
experiences across both groups, with perceived gains in mobility,
socialization, and motivation. Reported barriers included technical difficulties
and need for family support in the TR group, while travel-related limitations
were highlighted in the IP group. Conclusion: TR and IP are safe and
effective strategies for individuals with PD, providing complementary benefit
profiles. The choice of modality should consider individual characteristics,
personal and contextual preferences, and the availability of technological
support. These findings reinforce the potential of TR as a feasible and
promising tool to broaden access and diversify rehabilitation options for PD.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Externo à Instituição - CARLÚCIA ITHAMAR FERNANDES FRANCO - UEPB
Externa ao Programa - 3374877 - LARISSA BASTOS TAVARES - UFRNExterno à Instituição - ROGÉRIO JOSÉ DE SOUZA - UEL
Presidente - 2319151 - TATIANA SOUZA RIBEIRO
Externa à Instituição - THAIANA BARBOSA FERREIRA PACHECO - UFRN