ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2025
Physiotherapists' User Acceptance of a Lower Limb Robotic Exoskeleton in Specialized Rehabilitation: Qualitative Exploratory Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Structured Robot-Assisted Ankle-Foot Sensorimotor Training Program Versus Manual Training in Chronic Stroke: Protocol for an Assessor-Blinded, Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Implementing Rehabilitation Robotics in Routine Care: A Mapping Review of Service Delivery Models, Implementation Determinants, Strategies, and Real-World Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Design Guidelines for a Game-Based Physical Rehabilitation System: Focus Group Study.JMIR human factors · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic lower limb exoskeletons have emerged as promising tools in the clinical rehabilitation of patients with lower limb paralysis due to neurological disease, stroke, or spinal cord injury. Identified benefits in gait function rehabilitation include improved gait function, cardiovascular effects, enhanced training quality, patient motivation, and reduced physical and psychological workload for therapists. Despite the identified benefits, the successful adoption of this technology largely depends on therapists' user acceptance.
objectiveThis study aims to explore physiotherapists' perceptions of using robot-assisted lower-limb gait training in specialized neurological rehabilitation using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology framework.
methodsA qualitative, exploratory research design with a deductive approach was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 7 expert physiotherapists in a Norwegian specialized rehabilitation hospital. Data collection and analysis were guided by the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology framework.
resultsThe physiotherapists' use of lower limb exoskeletons was greatly influenced by perceived benefits for patients or challenges, such as usability issues, the time required for adjustment to each patient, and the lack of personnel resources to facilitate their use. Thus, perceived usefulness and facilitating conditions (or lack thereof) had a great influence on the physiotherapists' intentions to use and the actual use of the exoskeleton.
conclusionsThis study identified several factors influencing the physiotherapists' acceptance and integration of the lower limb exoskeleton. Available resources, such as time and personnel, were emphasized as important factors to increase the use of the exoskeleton in specialized rehabilitation. Our findings may inform service providers and engineers in specialized neurological rehabilitation settings.
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.