Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34953497›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

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

Despina Laparidou, Ffion Curtis, Joseph Akanuwe, Khaled Goher, A Niroshan Siriwardena, Ayse Kucukyilmaz

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

Synthesis 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Heterogeneity of Attitudes toward Robots in Healthcare among the Chinese Public: A Latent Profile Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Despina LaparidouCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
Ffion CurtisDiabetes Research Centre, College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
Joseph AkanuweCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
Khaled GoherSchool of Engineering, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7DQ, UK.
A Niroshan SiriwardenaCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
Ayse KucukyilmazSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 2DU, UK. ayse.kucukyilmaz@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3202-6750
University of Lincoln · GBLeicester General Hospital · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

methodsQualitative 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsDespite 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.

Indexed as

CaregiversRoboticsHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchCarersExperiencesMeta-synthesisMotor rehabilitationPatientsPerceptionsRoboticsStaffSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34953497
PMCPMC8710022
OpenAlexW4200196294

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.