Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37109297›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Acceptance of Assistive Technology by Users with Motor Disabilities Due to Spinal Cord or Acquired Brain Injuries: A Systematic Review.

Sara Ventura, Giovanni Ottoboni, Alessandro Pappadà, Alessia Tessari

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Preliminary Investigation of Myoelectric Control of an Assistive Neck Exoskeleton by Individuals With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara VenturaDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni OttoboniDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7649-6642
Alessandro PappadàDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Alessia TessariDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6616-2454
University of Bologna · ITUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

European Union 951910Ministry of Universities of the Government of Spain UP2021-044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acquired motor limits can be provoked by neurological lesions. Independently of the aetiologies, the lesions require patients to develop new coping strategies and adapt to the changed motor functionalities. In all of these occasions, what is defined as an assistive technology (AT) may represent a promising solution. The present work is a systematic review of the scientific AT-related literature published in the PubMed, Cinahl, and Psychinfo databases up to September 2022. This review was undertaken to summarise how the acceptance of AT is assessed in people with motor deficits due to neurological lesions. We review papers that (1) dealt with adults (≥18 years old) with motor deficits due to spinal cord or acquired brain injuries and (2) concerned user acceptance of hard AT. A total of 615 studies emerged, and 18 articles were reviewed according to the criteria. The constructs used to assess users' acceptance mainly entail people's satisfaction, ease of use, safety and comfort. Moreover, the acceptance constructs varied as a function of participants' injury severity. Despite the heterogeneity, acceptability was mainly ascertained through pilot and usability studies in laboratory settings. Furthermore, ad-hoc questionnaires and qualitative methods were preferred to unstandardized protocols of measurement. This review highlights the way in which people living with acquired motor limits greatly appreciate ATs. On the other hand, methodological heterogeneity indicates that evaluation protocols should be systematized and finely tuned.

Indexed as

acquired neurological lesionassistive technologysystematic reviewtechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID37109297
PMCPMC10146680
OpenAlexW4366392225

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.