ArticleJMIR human factors2024
Implementation and Evaluation of a Gait Training Assistant for the Use of Crutches: Usability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical procedures on the lower extremities often require weight-bearing on crutches as part of the rehabilitation process. Orthopedic elective procedures enable patients to learn the correct use of crutches in a controlled preoperative setting. Digital assistance systems can safely circumvent a shortage of skilled staff and any contact restrictions that may be necessary.
objectiveThe usability of a newly developed gait training assistant (GTA) for the use of crutches will be evaluated. An intervention group trained to use crutches by the digital trainer will be compared with a control group trained to use crutches conventionally by a physiotherapist.
methodsAs part of the development and implementation of a novel GTA, 14 patients learned to walk with crutches by completing specific exercises while receiving live feedback. Their movements were detected by a depth sensor and evaluated in real time. Specific parameters (step length, synchronous movement, crutch angle, and crutch distance to the feet) were compared with a control group (n=14) trained to use crutches by physiotherapists. The intervention group was also assessed by a physiotherapist. At the end of the study, the patients completed questionnaires to evaluate the usability of the system (Brooke's System Usability Scale score) and patient satisfaction.
resultsAll patients trained by the novel GTA were able to use crutches correctly. The intervention group showed significantly better values for crutch angle (mean -6.3°, SD 3.5° vs mean -12.4°, SD 4.5°; P<.001) and crutch position (mean 3.3, SD 5.1 cm vs mean -8.5, SD 4.9 cm; P=.02). Both groups reported that they felt confident in the use of crutches, were able to follow the instructions, and enjoyed the training. Even though the majority (12/14, 86%) preferred physical therapy over a purely digital approach, most participants enjoyed using the system (13/14, 93%) and were interested in trying out other digital assistants (11/14, 79%). The usability of the GTA was rated above average by the majority (9/14, 64%) of the patients.
conclusionsThe newly designed GTA is a safe method of teaching the use of crutches and is statistically superior to training by a physiotherapist. Even if patients prefer interaction with a physiotherapist over a purely digital approach, digital devices provide a safe and motivating opportunity to learn the essential locomotor skills for rehabilitation.
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.