Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39024576›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2024

Technology Use for Home-Based Stroke Rehabilitation in Switzerland From the Perspectives of Persons Living With Stroke, Informal Caregivers, and Therapists: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.

Lena Sauerzopf, Andreas Luft, Valeria Maeusli, Verena Klamroth-Marganska, Michael Sy, Martina Rebekka Spiess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Lena SauerzopfInstitute of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5882-6436
Andreas LuftDivision of Vascular Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-7382
Valeria MaeusliInstitute of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0297-5052
Verena Klamroth-MarganskaRehaklinik Bellikon, Bellikon, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-792X
Michael SyInstitute of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0849-2874
Martina Rebekka SpiessInstitute of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3945-0282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is a leading cause for long-term disability, requiring both inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation and self-training in the home environment. Technology-based tools are gradually gaining acceptance as additional and suitable options for extending the rehabilitation process. While the experiences of persons living with stroke, therapists, and informal caregivers with respect to technology use have already been investigated in other countries, this topic is underexplored in the Swiss context.

objectiveWe aimed to explore the experiences and needs of persons living with stroke, informal caregivers, and therapists in using technology-based tools in a home environment for stroke rehabilitation in Switzerland.

methodsThis study followed a qualitative descriptive methodology, including semistructured interviews and focus group discussions. We applied a deductive template analysis alongside the accessibility, adaptability, accountability, and engagement framework to analyze the qualitative data sets for technology-assisted solutions for poststroke rehabilitation.

resultsWe collected the experiences and needs of persons living with stroke (7/23, 30%), informal caregivers (4/23, 17%), and therapists (occupational and physical therapists; 12/23, 52%). The 4 categories we used to organize the analysis and results were accessibility to quality rehabilitation, adaptability to patient differences, accountability or compliance with rehabilitation, and engagement with rehabilitation. Persons living with stroke stated that they use various tools within their rehabilitation process depending on their specific needs. They felt that there is a plethora of tools available but sometimes felt overwhelmed with the selection process. Informal caregivers indicated that they generally felt underserved and insufficiently informed throughout the rehabilitation process. They reported that they use technology-based tools to support their relatives affected by stroke in becoming more independent. Therapists appreciate the numerous possible applications of technology-based tools in rehabilitation. At the same time, however, they express dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity in Switzerland regarding cost coverage, recommendations, and training opportunities.

conclusionsPersons living with stroke, informal caregivers, and therapists in Switzerland reported varied and unique experiences and needs with the use of technology-based tools in outpatient stroke rehabilitation. Written recommendations, the assumption of financial costs, and the provision of information and education could foster increased confidence in the use of technology-based tools for patients and therapists.

Indexed as

apphome-based therapymobile phoneoccupational therapyoutpatient rehabilitationphysiotherapystroketechnology-based tools

Identifiers

PMID39024576
PMCPMC11294768

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.