Background Home-based, self-managed stroke rehabilitation can complement limited healthcare resources. Computer-based programs offer a potential for rehabilitation without the need for complex technology or direct therapist supervision.

Objective To compare effectiveness of a home-based web rehabilitation program (STRONG) versus a paper exercise program (PEP) for stroke-related upper extremity disability.

Methods In this single-blind randomized controlled trial 43 participants with stroke were stratified by motor ability and motivation, then randomly assigned to either STRONG (n=22) or PEP (n=21). Training consisted of a 6-week intervention phase (at least 1 hour daily, 5 days weekly), followed by a 6-week follow-up phase with optional training. Primary outcomes were Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA) and the streamlined timed Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT-T). Secondary outcomes Motor Activity Log (MAL), WMFT-Function (WMFT-F), Stroke Motivation Scale, and Self-Efficacy Scale.

Results Neither program showed superiority in FMA or WMFT-T. Within-group FMA improvements were similar (Strong: 1.8 points vs PEP: 2.1 points at post-training; 3.3 vs 1.9 at follow-up). However, STRONG participants reported better arm and hand use in daily activities (MAL) at post-training and follow-up. Additionally, STRONG participants showed higher self-efficacy at post-training, though this difference was not maintained at follow-up.

Conclusion Both programs led to modest motor improvements. While STRONG did not outperform PEP in the primary outcomes, participants reported using their affected arm and hand more in daily activities and higher program continuation after the intervention period. Results suggest that home-based, self-managed rehabilitation combining exercises with daily tasks appears beneficial for stroke survivors post-standard rehabilitation.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03484182

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03484182

The study was supported by NIDILRR Field Initiated Grant 90IFRE0011.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study adhered to the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors