ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Considerations for at-home upper-limb rehabilitation technology following stroke: Perspectives of stroke survivors and therapists.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology Use for Home-Based Stroke Rehabilitation in Switzerland From the Perspectives of Persons Living With Stroke, Informal Caregivers, and Therapists: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2024Article
- Designing for usability: development and evaluation of a portable minimally-actuated haptic hand and forearm trainer for unsupervised stroke rehabilitation.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated the needs of stroke survivors and therapists, and how they may contrast, for the design of robots for at-home post stroke rehabilitation therapy, in the Ontario, Canada, context. Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with stroke survivors ( Results: Design recommendations, potential features, and barriers were identified from the interviews. Stroke survivors and therapists agreed on many of the needs for at-home robotic rehabilitation; however, stroke survivors had more insights into their home environment, barriers, and needs relating to technology, while therapists had more insights into therapy methodology and patient safety and interaction. Both groups felt a one-size-fits-all approach to rehabilitation robot design is inappropriate. Designs could address a broader range of impairments by incorporating household items and breaking activities down into their component motions. Designs should incorporate hand and wrist supports and activities. Designs should monitor trunk and shoulder motion and consider incorporating group activities. Conclusion: While therapists can provide insight in the early stages of design of rehabilitation technology, stroke survivors' perspectives are crucial to designing for the home environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.