Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40463779›Full record

ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025

Use of Technology in the Rehabilitation Setting: Therapy Observations, Mixed Methods Analysis, and Data Visualization.

Courtney Celian, Hannah Redd, Kevin Smaller, Partha Ryali, James L Patton, David J Reinkensmeyer, Miriam R Rafferty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Courtney CelianShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Robotics Lab, Arms & Hands Lab, Chicago, IL.
Hannah ReddShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Robotics Lab, Arms & Hands Lab, Chicago, IL.
Kevin SmallerShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Knowledge Translation: Exercise and Activity for Symptom Management (KTEAM), Strength & Endurance Lab, Chicago, IL.
Partha RyaliShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Robotics Lab, Arms & Hands Lab, Chicago, IL.
James L PattonShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Robotics Lab, Arms & Hands Lab, Chicago, IL.
David J ReinkensmeyerDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Henry Samueli School of Engineering, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA.
Miriam R RaffertyShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Knowledge Translation: Exercise and Activity for Symptom Management (KTEAM), Strength & Endurance Lab, Chicago, IL.

Funding

The Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC) at Northwestern UniversityP30AG059988 · NIA · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ACKERMANN, RONALD T. · 2020 to 2024
$7.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG059988
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To analyze real-world rehabilitation technology (RT) use, with a view toward enhancing RT development and adoption. Design: A convergent, mixed-methods study using therapy observations, semistructured templates, and summative content analysis. Setting: Ten neurorehabilitation units in a single health system. Participants: Three research clinicians (1 occupational therapist [OT], 2 physical therapists [PTs]) observed approximately 78 OTs and 100 PTs (N=178). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Characteristics of RT, time spent setting up and using RT, and clinician behaviors. Results: Ninety distinct devices across 15 different focus areas were inventoried. Three hundred twenty-nine RT uses were documented over 44 hours, with only 42% of inventoried devices observed used. RT was used more during interventions (72%) than measurement (28%). Intervention devices used frequently were associated with balance/gait (39%), strength/endurance (30%), and transfer/mobility training (16%). Measurement devices were frequently used to measure vital signs (83%), followed by grip strength (7%), and upper extremity function (5%). Device characteristics were predominately electrically powered (56%), actuated (57%), monitor-less (53%), multiuse (68%), and required little familiarization (57%). Setup times were brief (mean ± SD = 3.8±4.2 and 0.8±1.3min for intervention and measurement, respectively); more time was spent with intervention RT (25.6±15min) than measurement RT (7.3±11.2min). RT nearly always involved verbal instructions (72%) with clinicians providing more feedback on performance (59.7%) than on results (30%) to their patients. Clinicians were evenly divided between providing one-on-one direct attention (49.7%) and multitasking (50.3%), such as completing documentation, when using RT with patients. Conclusions: Even in a tech-friendly hospital, most available RTs were observed unused, especially measurement technologies. We discuss how the identified characteristics of used RT, as well as the observations about how therapists used RT, may be useful in guiding new designs. An interactive data visualization page supplement is also provided to facilitate further exploration with this dataset.

Indexed as

Empirical researchImplementation scienceObservational studyOccupational therapyPhysical and rehabilitation medicinePhysical therapyQualitative researchQuantitative researchRehabilitationTechnologyTechnology transfer

Identifiers

PMID40463779
PMCPMC12128602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.