ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Towards co-design of rehabilitation technologies: a collaborative approach to prioritize usability issues.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing Digital Platforms to Help Older Adults Stay Physically and Socially Active: Co-Design Study to Develop a Toolkit and Evaluate Its Impact.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Beyond a buzzword: the need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Virtual reality mediated brain-computer interface training improves sensorimotor neuromodulation in unimpaired and post spinal cord injury individuals.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Medical Device Based on a Virtual Reality-Based Upper Limb Rehabilitation Software: Usability Evaluation Through Cognitive Walkthrough.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Usability of a cross-system housing stability program for juvenile courts: A multimethod study of probation counselor perspectives.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.