Integrated approaches to advancing rehabilitation in primary healthcare in Bangladesh: A narrative review

Authors

DOI:

Keywords

rehabilitation, primary health care, BRICS, telemedicine, World Health Organization Rehabilitation 2030

Correspondence

Md. A.K. Azad
Email: azad.ph@diu.edu.bd

Publication history

Received: 11 Feb 2026
Accepted: 15 Mar 2026
Published online: 19 May 2026

Responsible editor

Reviewers

Funding

None

Ethical approval

Not applicable

Trial registration number

Not applicable

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2026; all rights reserved. 
Published by Bangladesh Medical University (former Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University).
Abstract

Background: Rehabilitation is a core component of universal health coverage, yet it remains inadequately integrated into primary healthcare systems in many low- and middle-income countries, limiting early intervention, functional recovery, and long-term quality of life. This study aims to explore global models and innovative strategies for strengthening the integration of rehabilitation into primary healthcare in Bangladesh to inform context-appropriate policy and service reforms.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted using a structured literature search of major bibliographic databases (Sciverse Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and World Health Organization institutional repositories for literature published between 2014 and 2025. The search terms covered rehabilitation integration, primary healthcare, health system strengthening, and technological innovations. Studies from global and low- and middle-income countries were prioritised. Study selection and screening followed a structured selection process, and the included studies were thematically synthesized to develop a context-specific framework for Bangladesh.

Results: Physical disabilities represent a significant share of rehabilitation needs; however, access to and the quality of available rehabilitation services remain limited. In Bangladesh, service provision is primarily influenced by three factors: inadequate physical infrastructure, shortages of trained personnel, and insufficient financing, which contribute to the concentration of services in urban areas. Although community-based rehabilitation initiatives have demonstrated improved service reach and acceptability, the integration of physical and mental health rehabilitation within primary healthcare remains limited. International experiences, including Chile’s comprehensive rehabilitation system and selected models from the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa countries, highlight effective approaches to integrating rehabilitation into primary healthcare. Technological applications, particularly telerehabilitation and other low-cost digital platforms, have the potential to expand access to services.

Conclusion: Strengthening rehabilitation in Bangladesh’s primary health care requires integrating basic services, training health workers, and establishing referral pathways, alongside expanding low-cost digital and community-based care to improve access in underserved areas.

Key messages
The integration of rehabilitation into primary healthcare requires systematic policy changes, workforce development, and technological innovation. Global lessons from the World Health Organization Rehabilitation 2030 initiative experience from low and middle income countries, combined with emerging technologies such as telemedicine and robotics, offer promising pathways to strengthen Bangladesh's rehabilitation services within the framework of universal health coverage.
Introduction

Rehabilitation addresses a person's physical, mental, and social limitations caused by ageing or medical conditions like an acute or chronic illness, disorder, accident, or trauma [1]. Rehabilitation may be needed regardless of age, gender, or socioeconomic status [2]. Rehabilitation helps individuals recognize and manage their impairments and maintaining their independence and engaging in meaningful activities of daily living (ADLs), such as work and school [3].

The World Health Organization’s (WHO's) 2022 World Rehabilitation Alliance (WRA) serves as a global network of stakeholders advocating for the Rehabilitation 2030 Initiative and promoting the integration of rehabilitation services into healthcare systems [4]. The global demand for rehabilitative services is becoming more apparent. One in every three persons needs rehabilitation during illness or injury worldwide [5]. The 2022 world report on health equity for persons with disabilities estimates that 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the global population, experience moderate to severe medical disabilities [6].

The estimated prevalence of disabilities in Bangladesh is 14% [7]. Rural women and the elderly people have higher disability rates [8]. The most common disabilities include Vision impairment had the highest incidence of disability (29.1%), followed by hearing impairment (16.5%), mobility problems (14.7%), and any other condition that prevented engagement in paid work (1.6%) [9]. Additionally, there is a greater need for rehabilitation services in Bangladesh due to the high prevalence of chronic and incapacitating illnesses [10].

Many individuals lack access to rehabilitation treatment [11]. Primary healthcare (PHC) system has not been aligned include rehabilitation policies as essential to universal health care [12, 13]. Health policy, planning, and rehabilitation decision-making require more local evidence to plan, fund, administer, and oversee high-quality rehabilitation services, including staffing and infrastructure, for those in need. This narrative study integrates worldwide approaches for integrating rehabilitation into primary healthcare and examines pertinent technological advancements to propose a contextualised implementation framework for Bangladesh.

Methods

We report the steps taken to conduct a comprehensive narrative review of global strategies for rehabilitation integration and technological innovations suitable for Bangladesh's healthcare context.

Search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major electronic databases, including SciVerse Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and WHO institutional repositories. The search was conducted across published articles from 2014 to 2025. A combination of keywords, including “rehabilitation,” “PHC” “health system integration,” “WHO Rehabilitation 2030,” “telemedicine,” “virtual reality,” “robotics,” “mobile health,” “Bangladesh,” were used. Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) studies. Bangladesh-relevant literature was selectively gathered from in-country databases and targeted websites.

The literature was screened in stages, including duplicate removal, preliminary title and abstract review, and full-text assessment for relevance to rehabilitation integration and technological innovations in LMIC settings.

Information synthesis

Relevant literature on the integration of rehabilitation services across PHC, and community-based healthcare systems, as well as technological innovations that support rehabilitation delivery in LMICs, including Bangladesh, was reviewed. We looked at new technologies also that can help with rehabilitation in LMICs, like Bangladesh. We synthesised information from the selected literature into a narrative, focusing on rehabilitation integration models, implementation strategies, technological applications, policy alignment, feasibility, scalability, and health system performance outcomes. Special care was taken to find patterns in success factors, barriers to implementation, and system-level strategies that could help improve rehabilitation services in LMIC health systems.

No statistical analysis was conducted, and the results were examined through thematic synthesis and comparison with global models.

Thematic synthesis

The study was designed as a narrative review informed by a thematic synthesis. The narrative technique was used to include empirical studies, policy documents, and grey literature to compare worldwide rehabilitation approaches and technology advancements relevant to Bangladesh's health system. A thorough search and organised screening procedure found relevant material, but narrative interpretation and synthesis focused on conceptual relevance, implementation insights, and policy applicability rather than quantitative effect size.

Results

Findings from the LMICs, specially BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), are summarised and presented below (Table 1).

Chile's comprehensive approach

Health disorders that benefit from rehabilitation account for at least 50% of all disability-adjusted life years [14]. The WHO has identified Chile's 2004 pilot programme, which included rehabilitation services in PHC, as a practical example of removing obstacles to integrating PHC rehabilitation [14]. The Chilean Ministry of Health funded and implemented the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programme in the Health Network in 2007, including the first Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programme in PHC (RehabPHC) as a major innovation [14].

RehabPHC uses three strategies to provide services: Rural rehabilitation teams, integrative rehabilitation rooms, and community rehabilitation rooms [14, 15]. Chile's 2004 pilot programme that successfully integrated rehabilitation into PHC has important implications for Bangladesh .

Among African countries Rwanda is another good example. Rwanda has been engaging community health data use tables that has led to wider population coverage [16, 17].

Table 1 Best practices in Chile and BRICS countries on technological innovations in rehabilitation within primary healthcare (PHC)

Country/region

Integration model

Key technological

innovation

Outcomes / impact

Lessons for

Bangladesh

Reference

Brazil

Community-based rehabilitation integrated into Family Health Strategy

Tele-rehabilitation through community clinics and mobile units

Better continuity of service and increased access to rehabilitation for remote people

Integrate rehabilitative services into mobile outreach initiatives and community health stations.

20, 21

Chile

Rehabilitation integrated into PHC network 

Tele-rehabilitation and digital health platforms. 

Improved access, service coverage, and continuity of care. 

Strengthen PHC-based tele-rehabilitation systems nationwide 

14, 15

China

Integration of rehabilitation into community health centres

Virtual reality and robotics-assisted motor rehabilitation

Effective post-stroke and musculoskeletal recovery; scalable tele-platforms

Pilot low-cost virtual reality  and telerehabilitation models in district hospitals

28, 29

India

Public–private partnerships for rehabilitation centres at primary health care level

mHealth apps for physiotherapy guidance and progress tracking

Enhanced adherence and patient monitoring

Develop low-cost mobile rehabilitation platforms through local telecom networks

26 ,27

Russia

Rehabilitation integrated into polyclinics and state health system 

Tele-rehabilitation and artificial intelligence-supported diagnostic tools 

Improved access, early diagnosis, and remote therapy delivery.

Introduce AI-supported screening and tele-rehabilitation in PHC 

24, 25

South Africa

Community-based rehabilitation linked with PHC outreach 

Mobile health (mHealth) and tele-rehabilitation services 

Increased access in underserved and rural populations 

Use community health workers with mobile-based rehab support 

18, 19

aBrazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

BRICS experience

The BRICS nations offer important insights for Bangladesh, as India's mHealth applications for physiotherapy [1819] and Brazil's community-oriented rehabilitation frameworks provide potential solutions, particularly in rural regions with limited access to healthcare [20, 21]. Some consider rehabilitation as a dynamic and complex notion that requires multidisciplinary cooperation to adapt to changing sociopolitical discourse that impacts disabled people [22]. The BRICS countries are implementing healthcare reforms to reach universal health coverage [23]. Community-based health professionals provide PHC services with limited training within the public health systems of these nations [24, 25]. In India Public–private partnerships integrate rehabilitation into primary health care, supported by mHealth apps for physiotherapy guidance and progress tracking, leading to improved adherence and patient monitoring; emphasizes scalable, low-cost mobile platforms [26, 27]. China integrated Rehabilitation into community health centres, using virtual reality and robotics-assisted therapies, resulting in effective post-stroke and musculoskeletal recovery and scalable tele-rehabilitation platforms [28, 29].

Exploding technology in rehabilitation

It marks a major change in how healthcare providers deliver rehabilitation treatments, leveraging digital tools, data-driven insights, and improved communication to enhance patient outcomes [30]. This paradigm shift affects diagnosis, treatment planning, therapy, data management, interdisciplinary collaboration, remote monitoring, and patient participation [31]. Findings are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Technological advances in rehabilitation relevant to primary healthcare (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries

Technology type

Function/ application

Evidence of effectiveness

Potential barriers

Feasible adaptation strategies

Reference

Tele-rehabilitation platforms

Remote therapy sessions and monitoring

Effective for stroke, orthopedic, and post-coronavirus disease patients

Internet connectivity, cost, lack of training

Use mobile-based low-bandwidth platforms; integrate with government e-health initiatives

1518, 21, 26, 35, 36

Wearable sensors

Track motion, gait, and muscle activity

Enhances patient adherence and clinician monitoring

Device cost and maintenance

Develop affordable local devices; academic–industry collaboration

28, 29, 41, 42

Virtual/ augmented reality

Cognitive and motor function training

Increases motivation and functional recovery

Equipment cost, technical expertise

Simplify using smartphone-based virtual solutions

29, 56

Robotics and exoskeletons

Support for motor rehabilitation and strength training

High efficacy in controlled trials

High cost, electricity need

Introduce low-cost mechanical aids before robotics

29, 50, 51

Artificial intelligence tools

Personalized exercise recommendations, predictive outcomes

Emerging evidence supports precision rehab

Limited data systems and workforce skill

Train health workers; integrate AI modules in PHC digital systems

45, 46, 47

Mobile health (mHealth) apps

Patient education, reminders, self-management

Proven to improve adherence in low- and middle-income countries 

Digital literacy, language barriers

Develop apps in Bangla with voice guidance and community support

18, 26, 43, 44

Telerehabilitation

Telemedicine has enabled medical experts to assess, diagnose, and treat patients in remote areas it includes remote patient monitoring, real-time video consultations, and digital platforms for doctor-patient communication [32]. Telerehabilitation, a branch of telemedicine, is the technique of remotely overseeing rehabilitation [33]. Multiple studies reported that telerehabilitation produced outcomes comparable to in-person therapy in stroke and musculoskeletal rehabilitation [34, 35, 36] with comparable patients satisfaction [37].

Key technologies

Neuropsychological rehabilitation simulates real-world events and creates compensating mechanisms through cognitive simulations and computerised examinations [38]. The "NeuroVR" system is a sophisticated technology that enhances flow and presence, empowering patients throughout rehabilitation [39]. Only platforms offer secure video conferencing for medical and educational consultations [40]. Wearable sensors Enable real-time tracking of motion, gait, and muscle activity, improving adherence and clinician monitoring [41, 42]. The mHealth apps Support patient education, reminders, and self-management, enhancing adherence in low-resource settings [43, 44]. Artificial intelligence tools: Enable personalized exercise recommendations and predictive outcomes, supporting precision rehabilitation [4547]

Robotics and assistive technology

Robotic technology may transform rehabilitation facilities and enhance patient outcomes by providing accurate, repetitive, and task-specific therapies [48]. Robotic technology, including exoskeletons, assisted training tools, and brain-computer interface systems, can promote patient autonomy and functional rehabilitation [4951]. One popular technique in rehabilitation, particularly for regaining motor abilities, is robotic mechanotherapy [52]. According to the study, robotic therapy may greatly enhance dexterity, strength, coordination, and motor function. Robotic gadgets also increase neuroplasticity by helping patients restore motor skills through frequent, precise, and regulated exercises. Additionally, home-based stroke rehabilitation uses robotic technologies to enable patients to participate in treatment outside clinical settings [53]. Robot-assisted arm training has shown potential to enhance post-stroke ADLs, arm function, and arm muscle strength [54]. Virtual reality and robot-assisted therapy are promising alternative treatments for motor function and quality of life. The computer-patient interface in virtual reality treatment simulates environmental interactions using hardware and software [55, 56]. This enables the development of sensory connections that closely resemble reality, with the additional advantages of instantaneous feedback and simultaneous task execution [57]. Robot-assisted therapy has shown potential to restore lost motor function or compensate for deficits after stroke [58].

Implementation barriers and facilitators

Implementation of telerehabilitation, VR, robotics and other digital tools is influenced by health system factors at multiple levels. Key barriers are poor infrastructure and connectivity, insecure or complex platforms, limited digital skills among providers and patients, higher perceived workload, and inadequate funding and reimbursement. At the policy level, scale‑up is constrained by weak integration of rehabilitation into national health systems, fragmented governance, and unclear legal and regulatory frameworks (e.g. data protection, liability). Facilitators include strong leadership and local “champions”, supportive national policies and financing for rehabilitation and assistive technologies, intersectoral collaboration, provider training and support, and technologies that are familiar, easy to use, and clearly beneficial to patients and professionals [59, 60].

Bangladesh-specific considerations

Rehabilitation services in Bangladesh are fragmented, urban-focused, and poorly integrated into PHC. The WHO's Rehabilitation 2030 Initiative is timely global initiative and relevant for improving service delivery. It addresses national health system constraints and growing rehabilitation needs through political leadership, integration into universal health coverage and PHC, workforce development, and scalable service models.

Current healthcare infrastructure

PHC infrastructure in urban and area should be described. The PHC is delivered in the urban areas primarily by city corporations and municipal facilities, such as urban primary health centres, ward level clinics, and NGO clinics with provision of basic outpatient care, MCH, immunization, family planning, and limited NCD care with referral to tertiary hospitals. Services are disjointed, with disability friendly infrastructure lacking, despite being better geographically available [61, 62].

PHC is structured in the rural setting in terms of community clinics, union health and family welfare centres, and upazila health complexes that provide 24/7 outpatient and inpatient services, as well as basic preventive/curative care, as referral centres. Despite a broad coverage, lack of trained personnel, rehabilitation, and disability inclusive infrastructure constrain effective access by people with disabilities [62, 63].

Over 20 million handicapped people live in Bangladesh, 10% of whom have major mobility, self-care, and daily life issues at home and work [64]. There has been much discussion over the prevalence of disability statistics. The estimated prevalence of disability is 14% [7]. Rural, elderly, and female residents have higher disability rates. Bangladesh Disability Classification includes autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, multiple impairments, and physical, psychological, visual, verbal, intellectual, hearing, and hearing-visual diseases. Physical restrictions predominate (22.5%) [65].

Health bulletin Directorate General of Health Services 2017 shows 5.34 doctors per 10,000 and 93,763 registered physicians. The DGHS lists 5630 public and private hospitals with 137,024 beds. Metropolitan areas employ most doctors. Only 2.8% of earnings go to health care [66].

Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) initiatives like Bangladesh's Promotion of Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities combine mental health therapies. Stigma and accessibility remain issues [67].

Social businesses as long-term rehabilitation models have been studied. A rural Bangladesh case study showed how these models might provide early intervention and rehabilitation services, sustaining revenues beyond setup expenses [68]. This review suggests a five-stage model of enhancing rehabilitation services in Bangladesh based on synthesis of the global models and technological innovations (Table 3) . The Framework represents a five-phase strategic framework for integrating rehabilitation into Bangladesh's PHC system. The phases are: (I) Institutionalization of rehabilitation in PHC [15, 69, 70]; (II) Capacity and workforce development [21, 71, 72]; (III) Technological innovation through cost-effective digital tools [18, 26, 73, 74]; (IV) Implementation and nationwide scale-up [20, 26, 75, 76]; and (V) long-term sustainability through monitoring and evaluation [77, 78, 79, 80]. For each phase, the table lists strategic focus, key actions, core stakeholders (e.g., MoHFW, DGHS, universities, NGOs, ICT Division), expected outcomes, and potential challenges such as funding constraints, workforce migration, and digital literacy gaps.

Bangladesh could overcome problems such as limited access in rural areas and a shortage of workers by using strategies like Rural Rehabilitation Teams and Integrative Rehabilitation Rooms, especially in areas that don't get enough help.

Table 3 Suggested framework for primary health care (PHC) system in Bangladesh

Phase

Strategic focus

Key actions

Evidence base

Core stakeholders

Expected outcomes

Potential challenges

Reference

Phase I: integration

Institutionalize rehabilitation in primary health care

Develop national policy; establish referral pathways; include rehab in Essential Service Package; train CHWs in basic screening

Chile PHC integration model demonstrating successful system-level inclusion

MoHFW, DGHS, NGOs, professional associations

Formal inclusion of rehab in PHC; improved early access and continuity of care

Lack of policy priority, limited workforce, funding constraints

15, 69, 70

Phase II: capacity and workforce development

Strengthen human resources and training systems

Integrate rehab modules into curricula; short training for physiotherapists and rehab assistants; promote task-shifting

BRICS workforce models an task-shifting approaches; HPSR evidence

Universities, training institutes, Bangladesh Physiotherapy Association, NGOs

Skilled human resources, better service quality

Workforce migration, limited institutional collaboration

21, 71, 72

Phase III: technological innovation

Introduce cost-effective digital and assistive technologies

Pilot tele-rehab and mobile apps; deploy low-cost wearables; collaborate with local startups

Tele-rehabilitation and mHealth evidence showing effectiveness and feasibility

ICT Division, startups, telecom operators, academia

Improved accessibility and patient engagement

Cost, internet connectivity, digital literacy

18, 26., 73, 74

Phase IV: implementation and scale-up

Expand proven rehabilitation innovations nationwide

Integrate digital rehab into PHC systems; establish teleconsult hubs; ensure public–private partnerships

Community-based rehabilitation scale-up models; WHO system strengthening

MoHFW, DGHS, private providers, donor agencies

Equitable access across rural and urban settings

Fragmented implementation, lack of coordination

20, 26, 75, 76

Phase V: sustainability and evaluation

Institutionalize innovation within health system

Create monitoring indicators; conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations; secure sustainable financing; foster research–policy partnerships

Digital monitoring, AI-based tools; economic and policy evidence

Health Economics Unit, universities, NIPORT, development partners

Long-term sustainability, evidence-driven policy, improved functional outcomes

Insufficient evaluation capacity, short-term funding, data gaps

77, 78, 79, 80

CHW indicates community health worker; MoHFW, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; DGHS, Directorate General of Health Services; NGO,  non-governmental organization; PHC, primary health care; ICT, information and communication technology; NIPORT, National Institute of Population Research and Training; HPSR, health policy and systems research; BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

Variables  

Frequency (%)

Indication of colposcopy

 

Visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid positive

200 (66.7)

Abnormal pap test

13 (4.3)

Human papilloma virus DNA positive

4 (1.3)

Suspicious looking cervix

14 (4.7)

Others (per vaginal discharge, post-coital bleeding)

69 (23.0)

Histopathological diagnosis

Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 1

193 (64.3)

Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2

26 (8.7)

Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3

32 (10.7)

Invasive cervical cancer

27 (9.0)

Chronic cervicitis

17 (5.6)

Squamous metaplasia

5 (1.7)

Groups based on pre-test marks

Pretest
marks (%)

Posttest

Marks (%)

Difference in pre and post-test marks (mean improvement)

P

Didactic lecture classes

<50%

36.6 (4.8)

63.2 (9.4)

26.6

<0.001

≥50%

52.8 (4.5)

72.4 (14.9)

19.6

<0.001

Flipped classes

<50%

36.9 (4.7)

82.2 (10.8)

45.4

<0.001

≥50%

52.8 (4.6)

84.2 (10.3)

31.4

<0.001

Data presented as mean (standard deviation)

Background characteristics

Number (%)

Age at presentation (weeks)a

14.3 (9.2)

Gestational age at birth (weeks)a

37.5 (2.8)

Birth weight (grams)a

2,975.0 (825.0)

Sex

 

Male

82 (41)

Female

118 (59)

Affected side

 

Right

140 (70)

Left

54 (27)

Bilateral

6 (3)

Delivery type

 

Normal vaginal delivery

152 (76)

Instrumental delivery

40 (20)

Cesarean section

8 (4)

Place of delivery

 

Home delivery by traditional birth attendant

30 (15)

Hospital delivery by midwife

120 (60)

Hospital delivery by doctor

50 (25)

Prolonged labor

136 (68)

Presentation

 

Cephalic

144 (72)

Breech

40 (20)

Transverse

16 (8)

Shoulder dystocia

136 (68)

Maternal diabetes

40 (20)

Maternal age (years)a

27.5 (6.8)

Parity of mother

 

Primipara

156 (78)

Multipara

156 (78)

aMean (standard deviation), all others are n (%)

Background characteristics

Number (%)

Age at presentation (weeks)a

14.3 (9.2)

Gestational age at birth (weeks)a

37.5 (2.8)

Birth weight (grams)a

2,975.0 (825.0)

Sex

 

Male

82 (41)

Female

118 (59)

Affected side

 

Right

140 (70)

Left

54 (27)

Bilateral

6 (3)

Delivery type

 

Normal vaginal delivery

152 (76)

Instrumental delivery

40 (20)

Cesarean section

8 (4)

Place of delivery

 

Home delivery by traditional birth attendant

30 (15)

Hospital delivery by midwife

120 (60)

Hospital delivery by doctor

50 (25)

Prolonged labor

136 (68)

Presentation

 

Cephalic

144 (72)

Breech

40 (20)

Transverse

16 (8)

Shoulder dystocia

136 (68)

Maternal diabetes

40 (20)

Maternal age (years)a

27.5 (6.8)

Parity of mother

 

Primipara

156 (78)

Multipara

156 (78)

aMean (standard deviation), all others are n (%)

Mean escape latency of acquisition day

Groups                 

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

Days

 

 

 

 

 

1st

26.2 (2.3)

30.6 (2.4) 

60.0 (0.0)b

43.2 (1.8)b

43.8 (1.6)b

2nd

22.6 (1.0) 

25.4 (0.6)

58.9 (0.5)b

38.6 (2.0)b

40.5 (1.2)b

3rd

14.5 (1.8) 

18.9 (0.4) 

56.5 (1.2)b

34.2 (1.9)b 

33.8 (1.0)b

4th

13.1 (1.7) 

17.5 (0.8) 

53.9 (0.7)b

35.0 (1.6)b

34.9 (1.6)b

5th

13.0 (1.2) 

15.9 (0.7) 

51.7 (2.0)b

25.9 (0.7)b 

27.7 (0.9)b

6th

12.2 (1.0) 

13.3 (0.4) 

49.5 (2.0)b

16.8 (1.1)b

16.8 (0.8)b

Average of acquisition days

5th and 6th 

12.6 (0.2)

14.6 (0.8)

50.6 (0.7)b

20.4 (2.1)a

22.4 (3.2)a

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.05; bP <0.01.

Categories

Number (%)

Sex

 

   Male

36 (60.0)

   Female

24 (40.0)

Age in yearsa

8.8 (4.2)

Education

 

   Pre-school

20 (33.3)

   Elementary school

24 (40.0)

   Junior high school

16 (26.7)

Cancer diagnoses

 

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

33 (55)

Retinoblastoma

5 (8.3)

Acute myeloid leukemia

4 (6.7)

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

4 (6.7)

Osteosarcoma

3 (5)

Hepatoblastoma

2 (3.3)

Lymphoma

2 (3.3)

Neuroblastoma

2 (3.3)

Medulloblastoma

1 (1.7)

Neurofibroma

1 (1.7)

Ovarian tumour

1 (1.7)

Pancreatic cancer

1 (1.7)

Rhabdomyosarcoma

1 (1.7)

aMean (standard deviation)

Test results

Disease

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

PPV (%)

NPV (%)

Yes

No

Reid’s score ≥ 5

Positive

10

15

37.0

94.5

40.1

93.8

Negative

17

258

 

 

 

 

Swede score ≥ 5

Positive

20

150

74.1

45.0

11.8

94.6

Negative

7

123

 

 

 

 

Swede score ≥ 8

Positive

3

21

11.1

92.3

12.5

91.3

Negative

24

252

 

 

 

 

High-grade indicates a score of ≥5 in both tests; PPV indicates positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value

Test

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

Positive predictive value (%)

Negative predictive value (%)

Reid’s score ≥ 5

37.0

94.5

40.0

93.8

Swede score ≥ 5

74.1

45

11.8

94.6

Swede score ≥ 8

11.1

92.3

12.5

91.3

Test

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

Positive predictive value (%)

Negative predictive value (%)

Reid’s score ≥ 5

37.0

94.5

40.0

93.8

Swede score ≥ 5

74.1

45

11.8

94.6

Swede score ≥ 8

11.1

92.3

12.5

91.3

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade 1

72 (36%)

Grade 2

64 (32%)

Grade 3

50 (25%)

Grade 4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade-1

72 (36%)

Grade-2

64 (32%)

Grade-3

50 (25%)

Grade-4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7,8,9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Variables in probe trial day

Groups

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

Target crossings

8.0 (0.3)

7.3 (0.3) 

1.7 (0.2)a

6.0 (0.3)a

5.8 (0.4)a

Time spent in target

18.0 (0.4) 

16.2 (0.7) 

5.8 (0.8)a

15.3 (0.7)a

15.2 (0.9)a

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.01.

Pain level

Number (%)

P

Pre

Post 1

Post 2

Mean (SD)a pain score

4.7 (1.9)

2.7 (1.6)

0.8 (1.1)

<0.001

Pain categories

    

   No pain (0)

-

(1.7)

31 (51.7)

<0.001

   Mild pain (1-3)

15 (25.0)

43 (70.0)

27 (45.0)

 

   Moderete pain (4-6)

37 (61.7)

15 (25.0)

2 (3.3)

 

   Severe pain (7-10)

8 (13.3)

2 (3.3)

-

 

aPain scores according to the visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10; SD indicates standard deviation

Surgeries

Number  

(%)

Satisfactory outcomes n (%)

Primary surgery (n=24)

 

 

Upper plexus

6 (25)

5 (83)

Pan-palsy

18 (75)

6 (33)

All

24 (100)

11 (46)

Secondary Surgery (n=26)

 

 

Shoulder deformity

15 (58)

13 (87)

Wrist and forearm deformity

11 (42)

6 (54)

All

26 (100)

19 (73)

Primary and secondary surgery

50 (100)

30 (60)

Mallet score 14 to 25 or Raimondi score 2-3 or Medical Research grading >3 to 5.

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade-1

72 (36%)

Grade-2

64 (32%)

Grade-3

50 (25%)

Grade-4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7,8,9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Trials

Groups

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

1

20.8 (0.6)

22.1 (1.8)

41.1 (1.3)b

31.9 (1.9)b

32.9 (1.8)a, b

2

10.9 (0.6)

14.9 (1.7)

37.4 (1.1)b

24.9 (2.0)b

26.8 (2.5)b

3

8.4 (0.5)

9.9 (2.0)

32.8 (1.2)b

22.0 (1.4)b

21.0 (1.4)b

4

7.8 (0.5)

10.4 (1.3)

27.6(1.1)b

12.8 (1.2)b

13.0 (1.4)b

Savings (%)c

47.7 (3.0)

33.0 (3.0)

10.0 (0.9)b

23.6 (2.7)b

18.9 (5.3)b

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.05; bP <0.01.

cThe difference in latency scores between trials 1 and 2, expressed as the percentage of savings increased from trial 1 to trial 2

Discussion

This review explores LMIC rehabilitation technologies using multi-country evidence. Policy-focused, it aligns with the WHO Rehabilitation 2030 framework and Bangladesh's health system needs. A structured literature search and screening approach guided the narrative synthesis, increasing transparency.

Synthesis of global lessons

The Rehabilitation 2030 Call for Action was issued by the WHO [81]. This initiative aims to strengthen health systems to deliver rehabilitation and ensure service availability at all levels and across the continuum [82]. Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) studies how health systems and policies affect health determinants using health and social sciences. Evidence shows its usefulness in rehabilitation, prompting health system officials and policymakers to pay more attention. Rehabilitation is rarely provided at all levels of care and is generally considered as a disability service provided in external facilities [81].

The most pressing issue is probably workforce development, which calls for creative solutions beyond the conventional professional training paradigm [83]. Health governance and human resource systems must be strengthened to address workforce concerns and transform the health system.

The WHO created the CBR strategy to help disabled persons in low- and middle-income countries access rehabilitation services [84]. The CBR technique complements the infrastructure of Bangladeshi community health workers and may help expand rehabilitation services [85].

The approaches to rehabilitative integration into the PHC are diverse international but their role in the health system of Bangladesh is obvious. Just like most of the LMICs, Bangladesh is facing a problem of manpower shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and unequal distribution of rehabilitation services. Chile, Brazil, and Rwanda have integrated rehabilitation in PHC using a community-based service provision, sharing of tasks with community health professionals, and digital health technologies. The local adaptation of these ideas can be done through the PHC network and increasing digital infrastructure that Bangladesh has.

Technology integration opportunities

Technological advancements offer previously unprecedented possibilities to address Bangladesh's rehabilitation challenges, but practicality and sustainability must be considered [86]. In PHC settings, procurement, supply chain reliability, maintenance expenses, and specialized and recurrent human resource training limit advanced robotics, exoskeletons, and immersive virtual reality systems. Bangladesh benefits from low-cost, scalable telemedicine platforms, mobile-based telerehabilitation software, and simple digital monitoring tools. PHC infrastructure can combine these technologies to improve health worker task-sharing, expand rehabilitation services in rural and underserved areas, and reduce long-term financial and operational expenses. Thus, Bangladesh's PHC system must prioritise inexpensive and context-appropriate digital advances to continue rehabilitative services.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that telehealth could be effective in Bangladesh, as evidenced by the success of other experimental projects [87]. Sustainable adoption requires infrastructure improvements, regulatory frameworks, and interaction with existing health services. [88]. Clinical trials, treatment plans, and devices are developed by scientists. Robotics and sensor-based assistive devices promote clinical rehabilitation, although PHC in LMIC rarely uses them [89]. Bangladesh's high smart phone user rates and growing internet access make mobile health apps appealing. However, regulatory oversight of integration with official health services and quality assurance remains necessary [90].

Cost-effectiveness

Rehabilitation programmes consistently have good cost-effectiveness ratios, especially when considering societal benefits like reduced disability, better production, and improved quality of life [91]. Studies have shown that telerehabilitation may reduce patient expenses by 40–60% while maintaining therapeutic effectiveness, making it a very cost-effective option [92].

Bangladesh healthcare cost-effectiveness studies should incorporate direct costs and economic effects including reduced caregiver stress, improved work performance, and prevented secondary problems [93]. Workforce development and rehabilitation infrastructure investments in the long run increase economic output and population health [93].

Challenges

Many obstacles must be overcome for proper implementation. Resource limits need innovative funding and prioritising of low-cost, high-impact treatments [94]. Prioritise building stable power and internet in medical institutes, especially isolated ones [95].

Workforce growth: Insufficient training, career incentives, and urban-rural disparities hinder workforce growth. Rural enrollment and health professional training colleges have suffered from urban migration. This issue exposes a policy implementation gap that must be addressed promptly to improve rural school operations [96].

Limited technology access: Recognizing rural healthcare shortages and educating doctors on AI robotics and other technology use ensures technological uptake in these systems [97].

Quality assurance: As task shifting and technology-enabled delivery expand services, quality assurance is another major concern [98]. It is crucial to develop appropriate standards, monitoring programmes, and processes for ongoing quality improvement [99].

Limitations

The narrative review design precludes quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of included sources limits direct comparability across interventions and settings. In addition, English only literature may have obscured local evidence in many countries.

Conclusion

The PHC system in Bangladesh should incorporate rehabilitation via policy and service interventions. These involve incorporating basic rehabilitation services into the Essential Service Package, establishing referral channels among various levels of PHC, and educating community health workers on screening and offering basic rehabilitation services. By including more affordable solutions, such as telerehabilitation through mobile devices, and mHealth apps in Bangla, it is possible to make it easier to obtain assistance, particularly in rural locations. Community-based rehabilitation teams and district-level rehabilitation units are pilot programmes that should be increased nationwide, depending on their effectiveness. The long-term inclusion of rehabilitation services in PHC requires strengthening continuous collaboration among the health, social welfare, and ICT sectors, along with established monitoring frameworks and secured funding.

 Lesion-size

Histopathology report

Total

CIN1

CIN2

CIN3

ICC

CC

SM

0–5 mm

73

0

0

0

5

5

83

6–15 mm

119

18

1

4

0

0

142

>15 mm

1

8

31

23

12

0

75

Total

193

26

32

27

17

5

300

CIN indicates cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; ICC, invasive cervical cancer; CC, chronic cervicitis; SM, squamous metaplasia

 

Histopathology report

Total

CIN1

CIN2

CIN3

ICC

CC

SM

Lesion -Size

0-5  mm

73

0

0

0

5

5

83

6-15  mm

119

18

1

4

0

0

142

>15  mm

1

8

31

23

12

0

75

Total

193

26

32

27

17

5

300

CIN indicates Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; ICC, Invasive cervical cancer; CC, Chronic cervicitis; SM, Squamous metaplasia

Group

Didactic posttest marks (%)

Flipped posttest marks (%)

Difference in marks (mean improvement)

P

<50%

63.2 (9.4)

82.2 (10.8)

19.0

<0.001

≥50%

72.4 (14.9)

84.2 ( 10.3)

11.8

<0.001

Data presented as mean (standard deviation)

Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely acknowledge the valuable guidance and encouragement from colleagues and faculty members of the Department of Pharmacy at Daffodil International University. The authors also thank all individuals and organisations whose contributions supported this study but did not meet the authorship criteria.
Author contributions
Concept and design, or design of the research; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: MAKA, MMR, AP. Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content: FHN, GFR, MZH, MAKA. Final approval of the version to be published: AP, FHN, MMR, GFR, MZH, MAKA. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: AP, FHN, MMR, GFR, MZH, MAKA.
Conflict of interest
We do not have any conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
We confirm that the data supporting the findings of the study will be shared upon reasonable request.
Supplementary file
None
AI disclosure
The authors did not use any AI tools in the preparation of this work.
    References
    1. Nas K, Yazmalar L, Şah V, Aydin A, Öneş K. Rehabilitation of spinal cord injuries. World J Orthop 2015;6:8–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.8
    2. Mishra S, Gosling J, Laplante-Lévesque A, Zapata T, Azzopardi Muscat N. The need for rehabilitation services in the WHO European region is substantial and growing. Lancet Reg Heal - Eur 2023;24:100550. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101537
    3. Turcotte PL, Larivière N, Desrosiers J, Voyer P, Champoux N, Carbonneau H, Carrier A, Levasseur M. Participation needs of older adults having disabilities and receiving home care: met needs mainly concern daily activities, while unmet needs mostly involve social activities. BMC Geriatr. 2015 Aug 1;15:95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0077-1
    4. Briggs AM, Dreinhöfer KE. Rehabilitation 2030: A Call to Action Relevant to Improving Musculoskeletal Health Care Globally. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47:297–300. doi: https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.0105
    5. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020;396:2006–2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32340-0
    6. Umucu E, Vernon AA, Pan D, Qin S, Solis G, Campa R, Lee B. Health inequities among persons with disabilities: a global scoping review. Front Public Health. 2025 Feb 10;13:1538519. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1538519
    7. Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U. Disability prevalence among adults: estimates for 54 countries and progress toward a global estimate. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:940–947. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.825333
    8. Moniruzzaman M, Zaman MM, Mashreky SR, Rahman AKMF. Prevalence of disability in Manikganj district of Bangladesh: results from a large-scale cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2016;6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010207
    9. Islam FM, Bhowmik JL, Islam SZ, Renzaho AM, Hiller JE. Factors Associated with Disability in Rural Bangladesh: Bangladesh Population-Based Diabetes and Eye Study (BPDES). PLoS One. 2016 Dec 9;11(12):e0165625. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0165625
    10. Jesus TS, Koh G, Landry M, Ong PH, Lopes AM, Green PL, Hoenig H. Finding the "Right-Size" Physical Therapy Workforce: International Perspective Across 4 Countries. Phys Ther. 2016 Oct;96(10):1597-1609. doi: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20160014
    11. Kamenov K, Mills JA, Chatterji S, Cieza A. Needs and unmet needs for rehabilitation services: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil 2019;41:1227–1237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1422036
    12. The Lancet. Prioritising disability in universal health coverage. Lancet 2019;394:187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31638-1
    13. Negrini S, Kiekens C, Heinemann AW, Özçakar L, Frontera WR. Prioritising people with disabilities implies furthering rehabilitation. Lancet (London, England) 2020;395:111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32623-6
    14. Seijas V, Hrzic KM, Neculhueque XZ, Sabariego C. Improving Access to and Coverage of Rehabilitation Services through the Implementation of Rehabilitation in Primary Health Care: A Case Study from Chile. Heal Syst Reform 2023;9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2023.2242114
    15. Narváez F, Marín-Castrillón DM, Cuenca MC, Latta MA. Development and implementation of technologies for physical telerehabilitation in Latin America: a systematic review of literature, programs and projects. TecnoLógicas. 2017 Dec;20(40):155-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.22430/22565337.721
    16. Musabyemariya I, Andegiorgish AK. Strengthening rehabilitation in the health system in Rwanda: factors contributing to the adoption of the world health organization’s guide to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems. Disabil Rehabil 2025;47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2483471
    17. Kumurenzi A, Richardson J, Thabane L, Kagwiza J, Musabyemariya I, Bosch J. Provision and use of physical rehabilitation services for adults with disabilities in Rwanda: A descriptive study. African J Disabil 2022;11:1004. doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v11i0.1004
    18. Mactaggart I, Kuper H, Murthy GVS, Sagar J, Oye J, Polack S. Assessing health and rehabilitation needs of people with disabilities in Cameroon and India. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:1757–1764. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107765
    19. Vasanthan L, Natarajan SK, Babu A, Kamath MS, Kamalakannan S. Digital health interventions for improving access to primary care in India: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Heal 2024;4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002645
    20. da Silva DB, dos Santos Sixel TR, de Almeida Medeiros A, dos Santos Mota PH, Bousquat A, Schmitt ACB. The workforce for rehabilitation in primary health care in Brazil. Hum Resour Health 2021;19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00669-x
    21. Maseko L, Myezwa H, Benjamin-Damons N, Franzsen D, Adams F. Service guidelines, models, and protocols for integrating rehabilitation services in primary healthcare in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil 2024;46:5144–5157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2290210
    22. Christophers L, Torok Z, Trayer A, Hong GCC, Carroll A. Interdisciplinary teamworking in rehabilitation: experiences of change initiators in a national rehabilitation hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2025;25:651. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12795-6
    23. Tediosi F, Finch A, Procacci C, Marten R, Missoni E. BRICS countries and the global movement for universal health coverage. Health Policy Plan 2016;31:717–728. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czv122
    24. El Kout NARH, Pilusa S, Masuku KD. A review of the framework and strategy for disability and rehabilitation services in South Africa. African J Disabil 2022;11. doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v11i0.893
    25. Lieketseng N, Cloete L, Mji G. The experiences and challenges faced by rehabilitation community service therapists within the South African Primary Healthcare health system. African Journal of Disability. 2017 Jan 1;6(1):1-1. doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v6i0.311  
    26. Oshomoji OI, Ajiroba JO, Semudara SO, Olayemi MA. Tele-rehabilitation in African rural areas: a systematic review. Bull Fac Phys Ther 2024 291 2024;29:89-. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/S43161-024-00256-W
    27. Zhang WW, Speare S, Churilov L, Thuy M, Donnan G, Bernhardt J. Stroke rehabilitation in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Stroke 2014;9:494–502. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijs.12029
    28. Hu L, Glavin YW, Yan R, Pei C, Yan M, Zhang Y, Liu Y. Integrating Health and Care in China: Lessons Learned and Future Outlook. Int J Integr Care. 2021 Nov 8;21(4):18. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5681
    29. Sheiman I, Shevski V. Evaluation of health care delivery integration: the case of the Russian Federation. Health Policy 2014;115:128–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.12.011
    30. Socha-Dietrich K. Empowering the health workforce to make the most of the digital revolution. OECD Heal Work Pap 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/37ff0eaa-en
    31. Bhavnani SP, Parakh K, Atreja A, Druz R, Graham GN, Hayek SS, Krumholz HM, Maddox TM, Majmudar MD, Rumsfeld JS, Shah BR. 2017 Roadmap for Innovation-ACC Health Policy Statement on Healthcare Transformation in the Era of Digital Health, Big Data, and Precision Health: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Health Policy Statements and Systems of Care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 28;70(21):2696-2718. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.018
    32. Bokolo AJ. Application of telemedicine and eHealth technology for clinical services in response to COVID‑19 pandemic. Health Technol (Berl) 2021;11:359–366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-020-00516-4
    33. Peretti A, Amenta F, Tayebati SK, Nittari G, Mahdi SS. Telerehabilitation: Review of the State-of-the-Art and Areas of Application. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;4. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/rehab.7511
    34. Sarfo FS, Ulasavets U, Opare-Sem OK, Ovbiagele B. Tele-Rehabilitation after Stroke: An Updated Systematic Review of the Literature. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018;27:2306–2318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.05.013
    35. Ferraris C, Nerino R, Chimienti A, Pettiti G, Pianu D, Albani G, Azzaro C, Contin L, Cimolin V, Mauro A. Remote monitoring and rehabilitation for patients with neurological diseases. BODYNETS 2014 - 9th Int Conf Body Area Networks 2014:76–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.bodynets.2014.257005
    36. Chang MC, Boudier-Revéret M. Usefulness of Telerehabilitation for Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020;99:582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/phm.0000000000001468
    37. Doiron-Cadrin P, Kairy D, Vendittoli PA, Lowry V, Poitras S, Desmeules F. Feasibility and preliminary effects of a tele-prehabilitation program and an in-person prehablitation program compared to usual care for total hip or knee arthroplasty candidates: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil 2020;42:989–998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1515992
    38. Gómez-Gastiasoro A, Peña J, Ibarretxe-Bilbao N, Lucas-Jiménez O, Díez-Cirarda M, Rilo O, Montoya-Murillo G, Zubiaurre-Elorza L, Ojeda N. A Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Program for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions: A Review That Supports Its Efficacy. Behav Neurol. 2019 Oct 21;2019:4647134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4647134
    39. Tan BL, Shi J, Yang S, Loh H, Ng D, Choo C, Medalia A. The use of virtual reality and augmented reality in psychosocial rehabilitation for adults with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Dec 14;13:1055204. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1055204
    40. Wlodarczyk JR, Wolfswinkel EM, Carey JN. Coronavirus 2019 Video Conferencing: Preserving Resident Education with Online Meeting Platforms. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;146:110e-111e. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000007073
    41. Buonocunto P, Giantomassi A, Marinoni M, Calvaresi D, Buttazzo G. A limb tracking platform for tele-rehabilitation. ACM Trans Cyber-Physical Syst 2018;2:1–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3148225
    42. Chen YP, Lin CY, Tsai MJ, Chuang TY, Lee OKS. Wearable Motion Sensor Device to Facilitate Rehabilitation in Patients With Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis: Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility. J Med Internet Res 2020;22. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/17032
    43. Dicianno BE, Parmanto B, Fairman AD, Crytzer TM, Yu DX, Pramana G, Coughenour D, Petrazzi AA. Perspectives on the evolution of mobile (mHealth) technologies and application to rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2015 Mar;95(3):397-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130534
    44. Kheirinejad S, Visuri A, Suryanarayana SA, Hosio S. Exploring mHealth applications for self-management of chronic low back pain: A survey of features and benefits. Heliyon 2023;9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16586
    45. Sumner J, Lim HW, Chong LS, Bundele A, Mukhopadhyay A, Kayambu G. Artificial intelligence in physical rehabilitation: A systematic review. Artif Intell Med 2023;146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102693
    46. Ciecierski-Holmes T, Singh R, Axt M, Brenner S, Barteit S. Artificial intelligence for strengthening healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. Npj Digit Med 2022 51 2022;5:162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00700-y
    47. Marrugo JJ, Piñeros JM, Rincon EH. Evidence on the utility of artificial intelligence in the interpretation of diagnostic radiological images in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Academic Radiology. 2025 Nov 25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.11.012
    48. Nicora G, Pe S, Santangelo G, Billeci L, Aprile IG, Germanotta M. A Systematic Review of Machine Learning in Robotics-Assisted Rehabilitation 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4674885/V1
    49. Banyai AD, Brișan C. Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Review. Healthc 2024;12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/HEALTHCARE12171720
    50. Banyai AD, Brișan C. Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Review. Healthcare 2024;12:1720. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171720
    51. Boman K, Olofsson M, Berggren P, Sengupta PP, Narula J. Robot-assisted remote echocardiographic examination and teleconsultation: A randomized comparison of time to diagnosis with standard of care referral approach. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:799–803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.05.006
    52. Modern rehabilitation technologies in the field of health. Nauk Zap Berdânsʹkogo Deržavnogo Pedagog Unìversitetu 2022;1:370–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.31494/2412-9208-2022-1-3-370-378
    53. Chen Y, Abel KT, Janecek JT, Chen Y, Zheng K, Cramer SC. Home-based Technologies for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review. Int J Med Inform 2018;123:11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.12.001
    54. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006876.pub5
    55. Aramaki AL, Sampaio RF, Reis ACS, Cavalcanti A, E Dutra FCMS. Virtual reality in the rehabilitation of patients with stroke: an integrative review. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2019;77:268–278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0004-282X20190025
    56. Liu Y, Zhang Q, Li W. Enhancing lower-limb rehabilitation: a scoping review of augmented reality environment. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 2025 221 2025;22:114-. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/S12984-025-01643-7
    57. Zhang Q, Fu Y, Lu Y, Zhang Y, Huang Q, Yang Y, Zhang K, Li M. Impact of Virtual Reality-Based Therapies on Cognition and Mental Health of Stroke Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 17;23(11):e31007. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/31007
    58. Marín-Medina DS, Arenas-Vargas PA, Arias-Botero JC, Gómez-Vásquez M, Jaramillo-López MF, Gaspar-Toro JM. New approaches to recovery after stroke. Neurol Sci 2024;45:55–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-023-07012-3
    59. Pearce L, Costa N, Sherrington C, Hassett L. Implementation of digital health interventions in rehabilitation: A scoping review. Clin Rehabil 2023;37:1533–1551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155231172299
    60. Jarvis K, Thetford C, Turck E, Ogley K, Stockley RC. Understanding the Barriers and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology (DHT) Implementation in Neurological Rehabilitation: An Integrative Systematic Review. Health Serv Insights 2024;17:11786329241229917. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329241229917
    61. Hamid SA, Begum A. Responsiveness of the urban primary health care delivery system in Bangladesh: A comparative analysis. Int J Health Plann Manage 2019;34:251–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/HPM.2626
    62. Torsha N, Rahman FN, Hossain MS, Chowdhury HA, Kim M, Rahman SMM, et al. Disability-friendly healthcare at public health facilities in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study to explore the existing situation. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:1178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/S12913-022-08538-6
    63. Sarker T, Xie W, Ahsan A, Atker F, Hossain MM, Anan A, et al. The Readiness of Primary Healthcare Facilities to Address Noncommunicable Diseases in Rural Bangladesh 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-7977902/V1
    64. WHO. Assistance and support. WORLD Rep Disabil 2011:135–65. Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability. [Accessed on 28 Mar 2026]
    65. Khan F, Amatya B, Sayed TM, Butt AW, Jamil K, Iqbal W, Elmalik A, Rathore FA, Abbott G. World Health Organisation Global Disability Action Plan 2014-2021: Challenges and perspectives for physical medicine and rehabilitation in Pakistan. J Rehabil Med. 2017 Jan 19;49(1):10-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2149
    66. Uddin T, Islam MT, Rathore FA, O’Connell C. Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine in Bangladesh. J Int Soc Phys Rehabil Med 2019;2:168–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/jisprm.jisprm_61_19
    67. Zhou Ayoungman F, Shawon AH, Islam MS, Kalam A. A study on the effectiveness of sustainable structure of emerging social enterprises to eradicate impoverishment: the rehabilitation paradigm in bangladesh. Russ Law J 2023;11:4. doi: https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v11i4s.868
    68. Koly KN, Abdullah R, Shammi FA, Akter T, Hasan MT, Eaton J, Ryan GK. Mental Health and Community-Based Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Description of the Experiences and Perspectives of Service Users and Carers in Bangladesh. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Jan;58(1):52-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00790-0
    69. Fosse RM, Ambugo EA, Moger TA, Hagen TP, Tjerbo T. Does rehabilitation setting influence risk of institutionalization? A register-based study of hip fracture patients in Oslo, Norway. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06703-x
    70. Seijas V, Hrzic KM, Neculhueque XZ, Sabariego C. Improving Access to and Coverage of Rehabilitation Services through the Implementation of Rehabilitation in Primary Health Care: A Case Study from Chile. Heal Syst Reform 2023;9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2023.2242114
    71. Watson ED, Moosa S, Janse Van Rensburg DC, Schwellnus M, Lambert E V., Stoutenberg M. Task-Shifting: Can Community Health Workers Be Part of the Solution to an Inactive Nation? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20:6675. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176675
    72. Charumbira MY, Kaseke F, Conradie T, Berner K, Louw QA. A qualitative study on rehabilitation services at primary health care: insights from primary health care stakeholders in low-resource contexts. BMC Health Serv Res 2024;24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11748-9
    73. García TP, Garabal-Barbeira J, Trillo PP, Figueira OV, Díaz CN, Loureiro JP. A Framework for a New Approach to Empower Users Through Low-Cost and Do-It-Yourself Assistive Technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063039
    74. Ganapathy K, Reddy S. Technology enabled remote healthcare in public private partnership mode: A story from india. Telemedicine, Telehealth Telepresence Princ Strateg Appl New Dir 2020:197–233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56917-4_14
    75. Heine M, Derman W, Hanekom S. Rethinking Scale-Up of Rehabilitation for Chronic Disease in Low-Resource Settings: Embracing Complexity for Contextual Impact. Glob Heart 2024;19:76. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1360
    76. Aubrey-Basler K, Bursey K, Pike A, Penney C, Furlong B, Howells M, Al-Obaid H, Rourke J, Asghari S, Hall A. Interventions to improve primary healthcare in rural settings: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2024 Jul 11;19(7):e0305516. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305516
    77. Rauch A, Negrini S, Cieza A. Toward Strengthening Rehabilitation in Health Systems: Methods Used to Develop a WHO Package of Rehabilitation Interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019;100:2205–2211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.06.002
    78. Shelton RC, Cooper BR, Stirman SW. The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care. Annu Rev Public Health 2018;39:55–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731
    79. Marrugo JJ, Piñeros JM, Rincon EH. Evidence on the utility of artificial intelligence in the interpretation of diagnostic radiological images in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Academic Radiology. 2025 Nov 25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.11.012
    80. Sumner J, Lim HW, Chong LS, Bundele A, Mukhopadhyay A, Kayambu G. Artificial intelligence in physical rehabilitation: A systematic review. Artif Intell Med 2023;146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102693
    81. Krug E, Cieza A. Strengthening health systems to provide rehabilitation services. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:153–154. doi: https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04728-1
    82. Gimigliano F, Negrini S. The World Health Organization “Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action.” Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:155–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04746-3
    83. Power J, McVeigh J, Gilmore B, MacLachlan M. Opportunities for human resources for health and rehabilitation: a response to Jesus et al. Hum Resour Health. 2017 Sep 30;15(1):73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-017-0244-x
    84. Iemmi V, Kumar KS, Blanchet K, Gibson L, Hartley S, Murthy GVS. Community‐based rehabilitation for people with physical and mental disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2017:CD010617. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010617.pub2
    85. Al Imam MH, Jahan I, Das MC, Bashar SMK, Khan A, Muhit M, Power R, Akbar D, Badawi N, Khandaker G. SUpporting People in extreme POverty with Rehabilitation and Therapy (SUPPORT CP): A trial among families of children with cerebral palsy in Bangladesh. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2023 Jun;65(6):773-782. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.15445
    86. Diaz FH, Borrás Pinilla C, García Cena CE. Exploring Robotic Technologies for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Current Status and Future Directions. J Sens Actuator Networks 2025;14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/JSAN14030048 
    87. Dhakal R, Baniya M, Solomon RM, Rana C, Ghimire P, Hariharan R, Makower SG, Meng W, Halpin S, Xie SQ, O'Connor RJ, Allsop MJ, Sivan M. TEleRehabilitation Nepal (TERN) for People With Spinal Cord Injury and Acquired Brain Injury: A Feasibility Study. Rehabil Process Outcome. 2022 Oct 18;11:11795727221126070. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/11795727221126070
    88. Kim T, Zuckerman JE. Realizing the potential of telemedicine in global health. J Glob Health 2019;9:020307. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.09.020307
    89. Nicora G, Parimbelli E, Mauro MC, Falchini F, Germanotta M, Fasano A, Sgandurra G, Beani E, Gruppioni E, Bugané F, Aprile IG, Quaglini S; Mission 1 Fit4MedRob Consortium. Healthcare practitioners and robotic-assisted rehabilitation: understanding needs and barriers. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025 Apr 9;22(1):78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-025-01593-0
    90. Radhakrishna MH, Ravindran V. How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? A Practical Guide. Indian J Rheumatol 2022;17:222–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/injr.injr_2_22
    91. Wong D, Pike K, Stolwyk R, Allott K, Ponsford J, McKay A, Longley W, Bosboom P, Hodge A, Kinsella G, Mowszowski L. Delivery of Neuropsychological Interventions for Adult and Older Adult Clinical Populations: An Australian Expert Working Group Clinical Guidance Paper. Neuropsychol Rev. 2024 Dec;34(4):985-1047. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09624-0
    92. Del Pino R, Díez-Cirarda M, Ustarroz-Aguirre I, Gonzalez-Larragan S, Caprino M, Busnatu S, Gand K, Schlieter H, Gabilondo I, Gómez-Esteban JC. Costs and effects of telerehabilitation in neurological and cardiological diseases: A systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Nov 29;9:832229. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.832229/FULL
    93. Hasan MZ, Mehdi GG, Tisha KI, Rabbani MG, Ahmed MW, Paul S, Islam Z, Mahmood SS. Costs of outpatient services at selected primary healthcare centers in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2025 Jan 14;20(1):e0317317. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317317
    94. Daniels K, Fitzhugh H, Nooraya R. Implementing employability interventions for workers with health conditions: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2025;385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118597
    95. Ubalaeze S E, Kelechi W E, Erere G O, Chinemerem D A, Chioma S N. The Impact of Digital Transformation on Healthcare Delivery in Nigeria: Challenges and Recommendations. Int J Res Sci Innov 2024;XI:498–509. doi: https://doi.org/10.51244/ijrsi.2024.11150035p
    96. Amaechi O, Anaya YB. A Workforce to Care for All. Fam Med 2025;57:151–152. doi: https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2025.493680
    97. Shinners L, Aggar C, Stephens A, Grace S. Healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions of artificial intelligence in regional and rural health districts in Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2023;31:1203–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.13045
    98. Das S, Grant L, Fernandes G. Task shifting healthcare services in the post-COVID world: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Heal 2023;3:e0001712. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001712
    99. Orton M, Agarwal S, Muhoza P, Vasudevan L, Vu A. Strengthening Delivery of Health Services Using Digital Devices. Glob Heal Sci Pract 2018;6:S61–S71. doi: https://doi.org/10.9745/ghsp-d-18-00229