Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450206›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024

Towards co-design of rehabilitation technologies: a collaborative approach to prioritize usability issues.

K Clanchy, J Mitchell, K Mulholland, E Jurd, E Kendall, D G Lloyd, D Palipana, C Pizzolato, C Shirota

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

K Clanchy *School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
J Mitchell *The Hopkins Centre, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.
K MulhollandGriffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
E JurdGriffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
E KendallSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
D G LloydSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
D PalipanaEmergency Department, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.
C PizzolatoSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
C ShirotaThe Hopkins Centre, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Early stakeholder engagement is critical to the successful development and translation of rehabilitation technologies, a pivotal step of which is usability testing with intended end-users. To this end, several methods employ end-user feedback to identify usability and implementation issues. However, the process of prioritizing identified issues seldom leverages the knowledge and expertise of the range of stakeholders who will ultimately affect the demand and supply of a device. This paper describes a novel method to prioritize end-user feedback using transdisciplinary stakeholder consultation and address it in subsequent product development. The proposed approach was demonstrated using a case study relating to the development of a novel technology for neural recovery after spinal cord injury. Method: Feedback from five individuals with chronic spinal cord injury was collected during two-hour usability evaluation sessions with a fully functional high-fidelity system prototype. A think-aloud and semi-structured interview protocol was used with each participant to identify usability and acceptability issues relating to the system in a 3-phase approach. Phase 1 involved extracting usability issues from think-aloud and semi-structured interview data. Phase 2 involved rating the usability issues based on their significance, technical feasibility, and implementation priority by relevant internal and external stakeholders. Finally, Phase 3 involved aggregating the usability issues according to design and implementation elements to facilitate solution generation, and these solutions were then raised as action tasks for future design iterations. Results: Sixty usability issues representing nine facets of usability were rated. Eighty percent of issues were rated to be of moderate to high significance, 83% were rated as being feasible to address, and 75% were rated as addressable using existing project resources. Fifty percent of the issues were rated to be a high priority for implementation. Evaluation of the grouped issues identified 21 tasks which were mapped to the product roadmap for integration into future design iterations. Discussion: This paper presents a method for meaningful transdisciplinary stakeholder engagement in rehabilitation technology development that can extended to other projects. Alongside a worked example, we offer practical considerations for others seeking to co-develop rehabilitation technologies.

Indexed as

co-designdisabilityrehabilitationtechnologyusability testing

Identifiers

PMID38450206
PMCPMC10915061

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.