## 4 Discussion  
The results of the presented study show that the proposed telerehabilitation platform is rated as a useful and user-friendly solution by both patients and therapists after a stroke. The usability scores showed overall good results, with slightly better ratings from the patients. Only the reliability was rated average by the participants. The participants in the study--three patients and seven therapists--showed average technology affinity according to the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale, with slightly higher technology affinity in the therapists. The most used features by the patients who used the platform were the exercise and the calendar functions. Patients reported good integration of the platform into daily life routines as it was easy to use. Patients further stated that they trained more with the platform and were more motivated. The most used features by the therapists were the exercise preparation, activity monitoring, and video call functions. The integrability in daily work life was average due to the time-consuming exercise preparation. All therapists estimated that their patients trained more with the platform. Furthermore, the study showed that telerehabilitation does have undeniable benefits, especially for patients, but it also offers new possibilities for therapists. Although the quality of synchronous therapy was rated worse compared to conventional face-to-face therapy, the possibility of having additional ways of providing therapy and training was mentioned positively by the participants of the study. Due to the service model of rehabilitation clinics, where the service delivery is solely based on therapy sessions with patients within their stay at the clinic, treatment after their discharge from the clinics goes along with uncertainties in how this service can be implemented. However, exactly this contact with the patients beyond their inpatient stay was mentioned positively, especially by the therapists of the Slovenian clinic, as there is a possibility to guide and treat patients in their transition from the clinical to the home environment. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. suggested the usage of telerehabilitation as an addition to the current rehabilitation process to ensure continuity of care, longer support, and long-term functional improvements [19]. Nonetheless, for therapists using telerehabilitation, it is necessary to perform novel tasks that require different competencies, which should be considered in the adoption of telerehabilitation [20]. Obstacles found in literature, like the disadvantage of different technologies needed [11], were partly dissolved by the system as it offers an all-in-one solution for patients and therapists. The system, together with the service model, combines different forms of therapy (face-to-face therapy, synchronous teletherapy) and training (asynchronous) and offers many possibilities and support throughout the therapy process. Face-to-face therapy describes the conventional therapy setting where the patient and therapist meet in person, either at the practice of the therapist or at the home of the patient. This type of therapy offers all possibilities for the therapist in terms of physical measures and live supervision of services. Synchronous teletherapy is the meeting of therapist and patient via a video call. This offers the possibility of anamnesis, therapy planning, and progress checks but is limited in terms of exercise supervision and lacks physical measures. Asynchronous training means the patient is trained without the live supervision of the therapist. The platform records data from the training (e.g., conducted exercises, training duration, Pablo Stats, etc.) that can be reviewed by the therapist afterward. Combining these three forms of training and therapy in one platform offers flexible rehabilitation possibilities for both the patient and the therapist.