Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36772758›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Technology Acceptance Model for Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation of the Upper Limbs from Therapists' Perspectives.

Beatrice Luciani, Francesco Braghin, Alessandra Laura Giulia Pedrocchi, Marta Gandolla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Methodology for the knowledge-based selection of occupational exoskeletons.Production engineering : research and development · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Beatrice LucianiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 1, 20156 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6611-4655
Francesco BraghinDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 1, 20156 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0476-4118
Alessandra Laura Giulia PedrocchiNeuroEngineering And Medical Robotics Laboratory (NEARLab), Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9957-2786
Marta GandollaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 1, 20156 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5237-714X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last few years, exoskeletons have been demonstrated to be useful tools for supporting the execution of neuromotor rehabilitation sessions. However, they are still not very present in hospitals. Therapists tend to be wary of this type of technology, thus reducing its acceptability and, therefore, its everyday use in clinical practice. The work presented in this paper investigates a novel point of view that is different from that of patients, which is normally what is considered for similar analyses. Through the realization of a technology acceptance model, we investigate the factors that influence the acceptability level of exoskeletons for rehabilitation of the upper limbs from therapists' perspectives. We analyzed the data collected from a pool of 55 physiotherapists and physiatrists through the distribution of a questionnaire. Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression were used for the analysis. The relations between the variables of interest were also investigated depending on participants' age and experience with technology. The model built from these data demonstrated that the perceived usefulness of a robotic system, in terms of time and effort savings, was the first factor influencing therapists' willingness to use it. Physiotherapists' perception of the importance of interacting with an exoskeleton when carrying out an enhanced therapy session increased if survey participants already had experience with this type of rehabilitation technology, while their distrust and the consideration of others' opinions decreased. The conclusions drawn from our analyses show that we need to invest in making this technology better known to the public-in terms of education and training-if we aim to make exoskeletons genuinely accepted and usable by therapists. In addition, integrating exoskeletons with multi-sensor feedback systems would help provide comprehensive information about the patients' condition and progress. This can help overcome the gap that a robot creates between a therapist and the patient's human body, reducing the fear that specialists have of this technology, and this can demonstrate exoskeletons' utility, thus increasing their perceived level of usefulness.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DevicePhysical TherapistsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyUpper Extremityintegrated sensor systemsmultiple linear regressionneuro-rehabilitationPearson’s correlationrehabilitation exoskeletonstechnology acceptance modeltherapists

Identifiers

PMID36772758
PMCPMC9919869

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.