Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34496894›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Clinicians' perceptions of a potential wearable device for capturing upper limb activity post-stroke: a qualitative focus group study.

Lisa A Simpson, Carlo Menon, Antony J Hodgson, W Ben Mortenson, Janice J Eng

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. HabitSense: A Privacy-Aware, AI-Enhanced Multimodal Wearable Platform for mHealth Applications.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lisa A SimpsonGraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Carlo MenonBiomedical and Mobile Health Technology Laboratory, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Antony J HodgsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
W Ben MortensonDepartment of Occupational Sciences and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Janice J EngDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, 212-2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. janice.eng@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2093-0788
University of British Columbia · CAETH Zurich · CHUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing interest in the use of wearable devices that track upper limb activity after stroke to help determine and motivate the optimal dose of upper limb practice. The purpose of this study was to explore clinicians' perceptions of a prospective wearable device that captures upper limb activity to assist in the design of devices for use in rehabilitation practice.

methodsFour focus groups with 18 clinicians (occupational and physical therapists with stroke practice experience from a hospital or private practice setting) were conducted. Data were analyzed thematically.

resultsOur analysis revealed three themes: (1) "Quantity and quality is ideal" emphasized how an ideal device would capture both quantity and quality of movement; (2) "Most useful outside therapy sessions" described how therapists foresaw using the device outside of therapy sessions to monitor homework adherence, provide self-monitoring of use, motivate greater use and provide biofeedback on movement quality; (3) "User-friendly please" advocated for the creation of a device that was easy to use and customizable, which reflected the client-centered nature of their treatment.

conclusionsFindings from this study suggest that clinicians support the development of wearable devices that capture upper limb activity outside of therapy for individuals with some reach to grasp ability. Devices that are easy to use and capture both quality and quantity may result in greater uptake in the clinical setting. Future studies examining acceptability of wearable devices for tracking upper limb activity from the perspective of individuals with stroke are needed.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationWearable Electronic DevicesFocus GroupsHumansPerceptionProspective StudiesUpper ExtremityQualitativeStrokeUpper limbWearable technology

Identifiers

PMID34496894
PMCPMC8425094
OpenAlexW3197077163

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.