Assessing Feasibility of Evaluating Provider Experience With a Remote Therapeutic Monitoring Platform

August 25, 2026 updated by: Adly A Adam

Assessing Feasibility of Evaluating Provider Experience With a Remote Therapeutic Monitoring Platform: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Clinician Workload, Therapeutic Alliance, and Satisfaction

: Remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM) platforms were increasingly deployed in Outpatient Rehabilitation to support continuous, between-visit communication, adherence to home exercise programs, and earlier identification of clinical setbacks. While patient-facing outcomes have received growing attention, evidence describing the clinician experience of RTM; including its effects on therapeutic alliance, perceived cognitive workload, and capacity for proactive patient management remains limited. Understanding how providers perceive and integrate RTM technology into their workflows is essential to optimizing implementation, sustaining adoption, and translating digital health investment into measurable clinical value. This cross-sectional survey study tested the feasibility of evaluating the provider's experience using a digital RTM platform across three pre-specified domains: 1) therapeutic alliance, 2) work satisfaction, plus cognitive loading, and 3) proactive patient management. A secondary objective examined whether years of clinical experience or self-reported comfort with new technology were associated with provider experience or perceived workload.A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was administered to licensed physical therapists at the Outpatient Clinics, Shebin El-Kom, Menofyia governate, Egypt between 1st March, and 31th July, 2026 with a response rate of 43.4% (43/99) for the completed surveys. Eligible clinicians used the SaRA Health RTM platform for at least the previous six months prior to initiation of current study. The survey instrument combined an internally developed 8-item Likert-scale survey (0-5) targeting therapeutic alliance, proactive management, and satisfaction (Cronbach's α = 0.89) with a modified NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; Cronbach's α = 0.86) measured the perceived workload across six domains (0-10). Cronbach's α coefficient demonstrates internal consistency, unless not construct validity or test-retest reliability. Statistical analyses included Spearman rank-order correlations and Mann-Whitney-U tests. For Mann-Whitney comparisons, results were reported as: U, p-value, group sample sizes (N1, N2), and rank-biserial r-effect size. For multiple comparisons across NASA-TLX subscales (k = 6), a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of α = .0083 was applied. Spearman correlations were reported with ρ and 95% confidence intervals.In this cross-sectional survey feasibility study, it was observed that clinician experience with the SaRA Health RTM platform was characterized by enhanced therapeutic alliance when early warning detection performed well, reduced cognitive load was observed when frustration was low, and meaningful facilitation of proactive patient management was observed among engaged users. Frustration emerged as the most actionable lever for design and implementation improvement, and self-reported digital comfort rather than years of clinical experience was the strongest clinician-level correlate of cognitive burden. These findings suggest that targeted onboarding, mentorship, and friction-reducing platform refinements may improve RTM adoption and amplify downstream benefits to patient care. Larger, multi-site, longitudinal studies are warranted to validate these signals.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM) has emerged as an increasingly important component of contemporary rehabilitation delivery, particularly within outpatient musculoskeletal care. The introduction of RTM-specific CPT codes beginning in 2022 to include patient-reported subjective data, has created reimbursement pathways that support integration of RTM into physical therapy practice by enabling clinicians to monitor patient progress, adherence, symptoms, and treatment response between in-person visits. Digital-health technologies may strengthen this alliance by providing easy access to communication with clinicians in between visits, enhancing continuity, and supporting personalized feedback between visits. Recent evidence suggests that digital-health interventions can positively influence patient-provider relationships when technologies are perceived as supportive rather than intrusive or burdensome. A feasibility, cross-sectional, quantitative survey was conducted at the Outpatient Clinics, Shebin El-Kom, Menofyia governate, Egypt between 1st March, and 31th July, 2026. The Outpatient Clinics provide care to adult patients with musculoskeletal, and neuromuscular conditions. Participating clinicians were defined as licensed physical therapists (PTs). All participants were recruited voluntarily and checked an informed consent box through an emailed request. Across three pre-specified objectives for this cross-sectional, quantitative survey study, the SaRA Health RTM platform demonstrated observational signals consistent with improved therapeutic alliance when early warning detection performed well, reduced cognitive load when frustration with the platform was minimized, and meaningful facilitation of proactive patient management among clinicians who experienced the RTM process as positive. Frustration emerged as the single most actionable target for improvement, and lower self-reported digital comfort was the clinician characteristic most associated with elevated cognitive load and reduced performance on the modified NASA task index. Together these findings suggest clinician experience design, education, and training as important determinants of whether this specific RTM platform translates into the proactive, alliance-strengthening care it is intended to enable.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
45

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Egypt
    • Menofyia
      • Shibīn al Kawm, Menofyia, Egypt, 11432
        • Shebin ElKom Teaching Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Clinicians used the SaRA Health RTM platform for at least the previous six months prior to initiation of current study. Licensed physical therapists providing Outpatient care to adult patients at the Outpatient Clinics, Shebin El-Kom, Menofyia governate, Egypt, who had used the SaRA Health RTM platform at least six months prior and during the study period. Exclusion: clinicians without direct RTM-platform exposure and respondents with incomplete surveys on key outcome items.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Licensed physical therapists providing Outpatient care to adult patients at the Outpatient Clinics, Shebin El-Kom, Menofyia governate, Egypt, who had used the SaRA Health RTM platform at least six months prior and during the study period.
  • A range of physical therapy experience levels and professions.
  • Clinicians used the SaRA Health RTM platform for at least the previous six months prior to initiation of current study.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Clinicians without direct RTM-platform exposure and respondents with incomplete surveys on key outcome items

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental Group
45 Licensed physical therapists providing Outpatient care to adult patients at the Outpatient Clinics, Shebin El-Kom, Menofyia governate, Egypt, who had used the SaRA Health RTM platform at least six months prior and during the study period. Exclusion: clinicians without direct RTM-platform exposure and respondents with incomplete surveys on key outcome items. Participants represent a range of experience levels and professions. Respondents were asked about their comfort with technology, the number of patient-care hours they delivered weekly, and the proportion of their caseload enrolled on the SaRA Health RTM platform
Other: Feasibility, cross-sectional, quantitative survey
The survey was administered anonymously and consisted of two principal instruments: 1) an internally developed 8-item Likert-scale survey examining clinician experiences with the SaRA Health RTM platform and its perceived contribution to patient care plans, and 2) a modified, non-validated NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) that captured perceived cognitive and physical workload, time pressure, performance (defined as the ability to complete work), effort, and frustration associated with platform use. The validated tool is generally used without modification using a 0-100 scale. We modified the scale to 0-10 with '0' representing the lowest end of each domain. The internally developed survey, designed by the SaRA Health research team, comprised 8 items rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items targeted clinician perceptions of therapeutic alliance, proactive patient management, and work satisfaction associated with use of the RTM system.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
A modified, non-validated NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX)
Time Frame: 1. At base-line of the study.
A modified, non-validated NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) measures perceived workload of human-machine systems across six domains and has been used extensively in the healthcare field to exam workload for providers using digital health technologies. The validated tool is generally used without modification using a 0-100 scale. We modified the scale to 0-10 with '0' representing the lowest end of each domain. For example, a score of 0 on the mental demand item indicates no additional mental load attributable to the system, whereas a score of '10' indicates extremely high additional mental load. The original instrument served as a template; item wording was lightly modified to reflect the RTM use case more specifically.
1. At base-line of the study.
An internally developed 8-item Likert-scale survey
Time Frame: 1. At base-line of the study.
An internally developed 8-item Likert-scale survey designed by the SaRA Health research team, comprised 8 items rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items targeted clinician perceptions of therapeutic alliance, proactive patient management, and work satisfaction associated with use of the RTM system.
1. At base-line of the study.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Adly A Adam

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
March 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 1, 2026

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
July 30, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 23, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 27, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 27, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 25, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
August 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • HSH00192

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings