Adoption of robotic stroke rehabilitation into clinical settings

Lo, Kenneth; Stephenson, Matthew; Lockwood, Craig

doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000231

Cited by 9 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 30 included studies (Table 2 ) were published between 2011 and 2020 and were mainly from eight countries: Canada [ 26 , 34 – 40 ], USA [ 28 , 29 , 41 – 45 ], the UK [ 46 – 52 ], Australia [ 53 ], Turkey [ 54 ], Ireland [ 25 ], Germany [ 27 ], and the Netherlands [ 55 ]. One study [ 56 ] took place across various geographical areas (Asia, Australia, Europe and USA), one study [ 57 ] across three countries (Italy, UK, and the Netherlands), whereas another study [ 58 ] mentioned being conducted in three European Union (EU) countries, without specifying the countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study [ 56 ] took place across various geographical areas (Asia, Australia, Europe and USA), one study [ 57 ] across three countries (Italy, UK, and the Netherlands), whereas another study [ 58 ] mentioned being conducted in three European Union (EU) countries, without specifying the countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the information provided, there were more male (n = 163) than female (n = 129) participants, while two studies included only male participants [ 43 , 45 ]. Eight studies did not report any data on gender [ 29 , 36 , 40 , 44 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 56 ]. Participants’ ages ranged from 8 to 88 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only three studies [ 28 , 34 , 42 ] provided information on the participants’ ethnic background, with participants identifying as White, Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx or multiracial. The sample consisted of patients undertaking or who had undertaken in the past robotic therapy (n = 255) [ 25 – 27 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 – 43 , 45 – 49 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 57 , 58 ], parents (n = 11) [ 34 , 39 ] or other carers (n = 8; the paper does not specify the carers’ relationships to the patients) [ 57 ], as well as healthcare professionals (n = 119), including physiotherapists or occupational therapists (n = 108) [ 28 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 53 – 56 , 58 ], doctors (n = 7) [ 54 ], nurses (n = 2) [ 54 ], and non-medical personnel (n = 2) [ 54 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Laparidou

Curtis

Akanuwe

et al. 2021

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, robotic rehabilitation devices have often been used for motor training. However, to date, no systematic reviews of qualitative studies exploring the end-user experiences of robotic devices in motor rehabilitation have been published. The aim of this study was to review end-users’ (patients, carers and healthcare professionals) experiences with robotic devices in motor rehabilitation, by conducting a systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies concerning the users’ experiences with such robotic devices. Methods Qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative element were eligible for inclusion. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2020, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from the included studies and review articles. Data were synthesised thematically following the Thomas and Harden approach. The CASP Qualitative Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies of this review. Results The search strategy identified a total of 13,556 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 30 studies were included. All studies were considered of acceptable quality. We developed six analytical themes: logistic barriers; technological challenges; appeal and engagement; supportive interactions and relationships; benefits for physical, psychological, and social function(ing); and expanding and sustaining therapeutic options. Conclusions Despite experiencing technological and logistic challenges, participants found robotic devices acceptable, useful and beneficial (physically, psychologically, and socially), as well as fun and interesting. Having supportive relationships with significant others and positive therapeutic relationships with healthcare staff were considered the foundation for successful rehabilitation and recovery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Laparidou

Curtis

Akanuwe

et al. 2021

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scope of this work was limited to lowprofile devices, as our interviewees' experience was predominantly in low-profile devices. High-profile devices such as robotics systems will have different product characteristics of importance for adoption [55], [56]. We did not examine differences in themes by demographics, such as education level, socio-economic status, gender, level of technology anxiety, self-efficacy, stroke severity, and attitude.…”

Section: E Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining Factors that Influence Adoption of New Post-Stroke Sensorimotor Rehabilitation Devices in the USA

Morrow

Johnson

Simpson

et al. 2021

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rehabilitation device efficacy alone does not lead to clinical practice adoption. Previous literature identifies drivers for device adoption by therapists but does not identify the best settings to introduce devices, the roles of different stakeholders including rehabilitation directors, or specific criteria to be met during device development. The objective of this work was to provide insights into these areas to increase clinical adoption of post-stroke restorative rehabilitation devices. We interviewed 107 persons including physical/occupational therapists, rehabilitation directors, and stroke survivors and performed content analysis. Unique to this work, care settings in which therapy goals are best aligned for restorative devices were found to be outpatient rehabilitation, followed by inpatient rehabilitation. Therapists are the major influencers for adoption because they typically introduce new rehabilitation devices to patients for both clinic and home use. We also learned therapists' utilization rate of a rehabilitation device influences a rehabilitation director's decision to acquire the device for facility use. Main drivers for each stakeholder are identified, along with specific criteria to add details to findings from previous literature. In addition, drivers for home adoption of rehabilitation devices by patients are identified. Rehabilitation device development should consider the best settings to first introduce the device, roles of each stakeholder, and drivers that influence each stakeholder, to accelerate successful adoption of the developed device.

show abstract

Clinician perceptions of a novel wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis

Winterbottom,

Chen,

Mendonca

et al. 2024

Disability and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adoption of robotic stroke rehabilitation into clinical settings

Cited by 9 publications

References 40 publications

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Determining Factors that Influence Adoption of New Post-Stroke Sensorimotor Rehabilitation Devices in the USA

Clinician perceptions of a novel wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About