# New Remote Care Models in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of the Literature
## 3 Results
### Outcome Measures  
As shown in Table 2, a wide range of tools was employed to evaluate the effects of remote assistance among the included RCTs; particularly, several domains emerged: self-efficacy, quality of life, psychosocial wellbeing, perception of chronic care, and disease-related clinical variations.  
As for self-efficacy, two authors [35; 37] examined two different perspectives about the concept. The first author employed the following:  
The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a self-reported measure of autonomy, productivity, and leisure [35]. This scale, validated on SCI patients, showed a slight improvement in the experimental group, without any significance.  
The Adolescent Self-Management and Independence Scale-II (AMIS-II) measures independence and self-management skills in a defined age range (18-25 years) through 17 items [35]. Even in this case there was a non-significant improvement in favour of remote care patients.  
[PERSON] et al. [37], instead, quantified changes in self-efficacy through the Moorong self-efficacy scale, which is validated on SCI patients, and comprises several items related to social interactions; remote care population showed a significant change in this tool.  
Quality of life represents the second most common item that authors included in this review [34; 35; 37] systematically evaluated. Reported results, in this case, were consistent across studies; in particular:  
[PERSON] et al. [34] applied three different tools: Short Form-36 (SF-36), EuroQol 5-domains (Eq-5D), and the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data Set ISCI-QoL-BDS. None of them, however, showed between-group changes.  
[PERSON] et al. [35], instead, used the World Health Organization questionnaire for quality of life (WHO-QoL), which showed slights and non-significant improvements in the experimental group.  
[PERSON] et al. [37], finally, showed no differences in terms of SF-36 between the study and control groups, in accordance with [PERSON]'s findings.  
Regarding psychosocial wellbeing, one research team [35] evaluated depressive symptoms (guilt, disappointment, satisfaction, and suicidal ideation) through Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Even in this case, the experimental group showed a positive but not significant trend. The same conclusion was reached about CHART-SF (Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique) administration, which described a positive trend for the experimental group about perceived disability.  
The study by [PERSON] et al. [36], instead, evaluated psychosocial variations based on the perspective of family functioning (FAD-Family Assessment Device scale) and changes in lifestyle (Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile-HPLP II scale). In both cases, the authors reported a significant improvement in the continuous nursing group.  
An interesting in-depth analysis about chronic care perception was conducted by [PERSON] et al. [35] using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale, a 20-items self-reported scale that measures the patient's perception to being central in the chronic care model developed by specialists and health professionals. This questionnaire had minimal variations between groups.