ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2024
Clinical Utility and Usability of the Digital Box and Block Test: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2024. 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.
- Simplified assessment of upper limb dysfunction after stroke: decision tree analysis based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Patients' Expectations for App-Based Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Box and Block Test (BBT) is a clinical tool used to measure hand dexterity, which is often used for tracking disease progression or the effectiveness of therapy, particularly benefiting older adults and those with neurological conditions. Digitizing the measurement of hand function may enhance the quality of data collection. We have developed and validated a prototype that digitizes this test, known as the digital BBT (dBBT), which automatically measures time and determines and displays the test result. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the clinical utility and usability of the newly developed dBBT and to collect suggestions for future improvements. Methods: A total of 4 occupational therapists participated in our study. To evaluate the clinical utility, we compared the dBBT to the BBT across dimensions such as acceptance, portability, energy and effort, time, and costs. We observed therapists using the dBBT as a dexterity measurement tool and conducted a quantitative usability questionnaire using the System Usability Scale (SUS), along with a focus group. Evaluative, structured, and qualitative content analysis was used for the qualitative data, whereas quantitative analysis was applied to questionnaire data. The qualitative and quantitative data were merged and analyzed using a convergent mixed methods approach. Results: Overall, the results of the evaluative content analysis suggested that the dBBT had a better clinical utility than the original BBT, with ratings of all collected participant statements for the dBBT being 45% (45/99) equal to, 48% (48/99) better than, and 6% (6/99) lesser than the BBT. Particularly in the subcategories "acceptance," "time required for evaluation," and "purchase costs," the dBBT was rated as being better than the original BBT. The dBBT achieved a mean SUS score of 83 (95% CI 76-96). Additionally, several suggested changes to the system were identified. Conclusions: The study demonstrated an overall positive evaluation of the clinical utility and usability of the dBBT. Valuable insights were gathered for future system iterations. These pioneering results highlight the potential of digitizing hand dexterity assessments.
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.