Digital Health Technologies for Mobility Recovery Among Intensive Care Unit Survivors: Scoping Review

Abstract Background Mobility recovery after critical illness is a complex and multidimensional process. Digital health technologies have emerged as approaches for delivering rehabilitation, monitoring recovery, and facilitating self-management among intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. However, the extent to which current digital health approaches address the multidimensional nature of mobility recovery remains unclear. Objective This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence on digital health approaches supporting mobility recovery among ICU survivors and to examine the mobility domains, outcomes, feasibility, and acceptability associated with these approaches. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley framework and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from January 2016 to September 21, 2026. Studies involving adult ICU survivors that used digital health approaches to assess, monitor, support, or promote mobility recovery were included. Mobility outcomes were mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains of body functions and structures, activities, and participation. Clinical outcomes were synthesized separately from implementation and user experience outcomes. Results Twenty-seven reports representing 24 unique parent studies were included. Digital health approaches comprised telemedicine, telerehabilitation, mobile health, wearable monitoring, virtual reality, robot-assisted rehabilitation, and digital recovery platforms. Telemedicine and telerehabilitation were the most frequently reported approaches, and exercise-based rehabilitation was the predominant intervention component. Mobility outcomes were heterogeneous and concentrated on body functions and structures and activity-level performance, particularly muscle strength, exercise capacity, and functional performance, whereas participation outcomes were less frequently represented. Controlled and comparative studies showed mixed between-group findings, with clinical benefits not consistently demonstrated across primary or mobility-related outcomes. In contrast, feasibility, adherence, usability, and acceptability were generally favorable when assessed, although technical difficulties and incomplete device-generated data were reported in some studies. Conclusions Digital health technologies offer diverse approaches to supporting mobility recovery after critical illness, but current evidence remains concentrated on physical function and activity-level outcomes, with limited attention to participation and long-term recovery. More rigorous and longitudinal studies using standardized, multidimensional mobility outcomes are needed to clarify clinical effectiveness and support sustainable implementation.