Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34305564›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2021

Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics.

Hannah Jones, Sigrid Dupan, Matthew Dyson, Agamemnon Krasoulis, Laurence P J Kenney, Margaret Donovan-Hall, Kaveh Memarzadeh, Sarah Day, Maxford Coutinho, Kianoush Nazarpour

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Internet of Things for beyond-the-laboratory prosthetics research.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Hannah JonesEdinburgh Neuroprosthetics Laboratory, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Sigrid DupanEdinburgh Neuroprosthetics Laboratory, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Matthew DysonIntelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Agamemnon KrasoulisIntelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Laurence P J KenneySchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Margaret Donovan-HallSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Kaveh MemarzadehOrthopaedic Research UK, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah DayDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Maxford CoutinhoDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Kianoush NazarpourEdinburgh Neuroprosthetics Laboratory, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBOrthopaedic Research · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Salford · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of Strathclyde · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, experience limitations of currently available prosthetic devices. Collaboration between academia and a broad range of stakeholders, can lead to the development of solutions that address peoples' needs. By doing so, the rate of prosthetic device abandonment can decrease. Co-creation is an approach that can enable collaboration of this nature to occur throughout the research process. We present findings of a co-creation project that gained user perspectives from a user survey, and a subsequent workshop involving: people who use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have experienced care services (users), academics, industry experts, charity executives, and clinicians. The survey invited users to prioritise six themes, which academia, clinicians, and industry should focus on over the next decade. The prioritisation of the themes concluded in the following order, with the first as the most important: function, psychology, aesthetics, clinical service, collaboration, and media. Within five multi-stakeholder groups, the workshop participants discussed challenges and collaborative opportunities for each theme. Workshop groups prioritised the themes based on their discussions, to highlight opportunities for further development. Two groups chose function, one group chose clinical service, one group chose collaboration, and another group chose media. The identified opportunities are presented within the context of the prioritised themes, including the importance of transparent information flow between all stakeholders; user involvement throughout research studies; and routes to informing healthcare policy through collaboration. As the field of upper limb prosthetics moves toward in-home research, we present co-creation as an approach that can facilitate user involvement throughout the duration of such studies.

Indexed as

co-creationcollaborationstakeholdersupper limb prostheticsuser-centred approach

Identifiers

PMID34305564
PMCPMC8299561
OpenAlexW3028309180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.