ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Uncovering clinical rehabilitation technology trends: field observations, mixed methods analysis, and data visualization.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze real-world rehabilitation technology (RT) use, with a view toward enhancing RT development and adoption. Design: A convergent, mixed-methods study using direct field observations, semi-structured templates, and summative content analysis. Setting: Ten neurorehabilitation units in a single health system. Participants: 3 research clinicians (1OT, 2PTs) observed ∼60 OTs and 70 PTs in inpatient; ∼18 OTs and 30 PTs in outpatient. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Characteristics of RT, time spent setting up and using RT, and clinician behaviors. Results: 90 distinct devices across 15 different focus areas were inventoried. 329 RT-uses were documented over 44 hours with 42% of inventoried devices used. RT was used more during interventions (72%) than measurement (28%). Intervention devices used frequently were balance/gait (39%), strength/endurance (30%), and transfer/mobility training (16%). Measurement devices were frequently used to measure vitals (83%), followed by grip strength (7%), and upper extremity function (5%). Device characteristics were predominately AC-powered (56%), actuated (57%), monitor-less (53%), multi-use (68%), and required little familiarization (57%). Set-up times were brief (mean ± SD = 3.8±4.21 and 0.8±1.3 for intervention and measurement, respectively); more time was spent with intervention RT (25.6±15) than measurement RT (7.3±11.2). RT nearly always involved verbal instructions (72%) with clinicians providing more feedback on performance (59.7%) than on results (30%). Therapists' attention was split evenly between direct attention towards the patient during clinician treatment (49.7%) and completing other tasks such as documentation (50%). Conclusions: Even in a tech-friendly hospital, majority of available RT were observed un-used, but identifying these usage patterns is crucial to predict eventual adoption of new designs from earlier stages of RT development. An interactive data visualization page supplement is provided to facilitate this study.
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.