ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Usability Evaluation of an Electrically Powered Orthopedic Exerciser: Focus Group Interview and Satisfaction Survey Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Musculoskeletal disorders significantly impair physical function and quality of life, necessitating systematic rehabilitation. Electrically powered orthopedic exercisers, such as continuous passive motion devices, are widely used to enhance joint mobility and muscle recovery. However, existing devices often lack advanced functionalities and user-specific adaptability, limiting their effectiveness. To address these shortcomings, the Rebless Pro was developed as a novel device supporting active and passive exercises with personalized treatment programs. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a formative usability evaluation of the Rebless Pro prototype using focus group interviews (FGIs) and satisfaction surveys with health care professionals specializing in rehabilitation medicine. The goal was to identify areas for improvement to enhance the safety, usability, and information clarity of the device. Unlabelled: Usability evaluation was performed at the National Rehabilitation Center with 10 participants (5 physiatrists and 5 physical therapists) who had prior experience using similar devices. FGIs were conducted to collect qualitative insights into user experiences, while satisfaction surveys provided quantitative data on ease of use of the user interface and identifiability and understanding of information. Data collection focused on identifying risk factors and usability challenges. Results: Three key areas for improvement were identified: (1) product upgrades to ensure patient safety, including adjustments to exercise speed and resistance; (2) hardware and software improvements to improve usability, including adjustments to the location of the emergency button and improvements to the graphical user interface elements; and (3) improvements to the user manual, including detailed contraindications, patient criteria, and clearer operating instructions. Although the mean score of physiatrists (mean 4.463, SD 0.298) was higher than that of physical therapists (mean 4.114, SD 0.829) in terms of the ease of use of the user interface, the difference was not statistically significant (P=.69). Similarly, in the category of identifiability and understanding of information, higher scores were again reported by physiatrists (mean score 4.467, SD 0.506) than by physical therapists (mean 3.733, SD 0.894), but this difference was also not statistically significant (P=.22). Conclusions: Usability evaluation provided actionable insights into improving the Rebless Pro's safety, usability, and information clarity. To further refine the device, iterative usability evaluations involving both health care professionals and patients are recommended. These efforts are expected to contribute to the development of a safe, effective, and user-friendly electrically powered orthopedic exerciser suitable for commercialization.
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.