Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37603405›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2023

Examining Usability, Acceptability, and Adoption of a Self-Directed, Technology-Based Intervention for Upper Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke: Cohort Study.

Michelle Broderick, Robert O'Shea, Jane Burridge, Sara Demain, Louise Johnson, Paul Bentley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Michelle BroderickDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8644-3739
Robert O'SheaDepartment of Cancer Imaging, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-7912
Jane Burridge *School of Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3497-6725
Sara Demain *School of Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-5156
Louise Johnson *School of Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9445-0069
Paul Bentley *Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8036-7010

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUpper limb (UL) recovery after stroke is strongly dependent upon rehabilitation dose. Rehabilitation technologies present pragmatic solutions to dose enhancement, complementing therapeutic activity within conventional rehabilitation, connecting clinicians with patients remotely, and empowering patients to drive their own recovery. To date, rehabilitation technologies have been poorly adopted. Understanding the barriers to adoption may shape strategies to enhance technology use and therefore increase rehabilitation dose, thus optimizing recovery potential.

objectiveWe examined the usability, acceptability, and adoption of a self-directed, exercise-gaming technology within a heterogeneous stroke survivor cohort and investigated how stroke survivor characteristics, technology usability, and attitudes toward technology influenced adoption.

methodsA feasibility study of a novel exercise-gaming technology for self-directed UL rehabilitation in early subacute stroke survivors (N=30) was conducted in an inpatient, acute hospital setting. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded; participants' performance in using the system (usability) was assessed using a 4-point performance rating scale (adapted from the Barthel index), and adherence with the system was electronically logged throughout the trial. The technology acceptance model was used to formulate a survey examining the acceptability of the system. Spearman rank correlations were used to examine associations between participant characteristics, user performance (usability), end-point technology acceptance, and intervention adherence (adoption).

resultsThe technology was usable for 87% (n=26) of participants, and the overall technology acceptance rating was 68% (95% CI 56%-79%). Participants trained with the device for a median of 26 (IQR 16-31) minutes daily over an enrollment period of 8 (IQR 5-14) days. Technology adoption positively correlated with user performance (usability) (ρ=0.55; 95% CI 0.23-0.75; P=.007) and acceptability as well as domains of perceived usefulness (ρ=0.42; 95% CI 0.09-0.68; P=.03) and perceived ease of use (ρ=0.46; 95% CI 0.10-0.74; P=.02). Technology acceptance decreased with increased global stroke severity (ρ=-0.56; 95% CI -0.79 to -0.22; P=.007).

conclusionsThis technology was usable and acceptable for the majority of the cohort, who achieved an intervention dose with technology-facilitated, self-directed UL training that exceeded conventional care norms. Technology usability and acceptability were determinants of adoption and appear to be mediated by stroke severity. The results demonstrate the importance of selecting technologies for stroke survivors on the basis of individual needs and abilities, as well as optimizing the accessibility of technologies for the target user group. Facilitating changes in stroke survivors' beliefs and attitudes toward rehabilitation technologies may enhance adoption. Further work is needed to understand how technology can be optimized to benefit those with more severe stroke.

Indexed as

acceptabilityacceptanceadoptionengagementinteractive gaminglimbmobile phonemobilityrehabilitationrehabilitation technologyself-managementstrokestroke rehabilitationtechnology acceptabilitytechnology usabilityusability

Identifiers

PMID37603405
PMCPMC10477927

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.