Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41980239›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2026

Evaluating the Feasibility of Technology-Based Interventions in Disability and Rehabilitation: Definitions, Considerations, and Dimensions.

Josh Shore, Amy S Hwang, Rosalie H Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Josh ShoreRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9060-2173
Amy S HwangDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada, 1 4169468566.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0217-6088
Rosalie H WangRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-9989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Technology-based interventions in the field of disability and rehabilitation, which serve assistive, therapeutic, and/or service delivery functions, are considered complex due to the skills required of providers and recipients, degree of individual tailoring, and diversity of use settings. Feasibility studies are an important step in the evolution of complex interventions that can help refine the intervention, inform implementation, and prevent wasted resources. However, guidance is lacking regarding specific considerations for feasibility studies of technology-based interventions in disability and rehabilitation, which leaves researchers and developers reliant on resources from other fields that do not address important technology properties. To advance the field, context-specific definitions, considerations, and evaluation dimensions must be explicitly outlined to ensure that feasibility studies are constructively designed to meet the unique needs of these interventions. In this viewpoint article, we (1) propose a definition and framework for feasibility studies within the specific context of technology-based disability and rehabilitation interventions, (2) highlight important and unique imperatives for feasibility studies of these interventions, and (3) articulate relevant feasibility dimensions and associated evaluation criteria for these interventions. Building on previous work, we distinguish between feasibility studies, wherein we focus on iterative intervention refinement by addressing key development questions (eg, usability), and pilot studies, which are small-scale versions of a larger study that will evaluate intervention outcomes. Integrating previous typologies, we present 13 feasibility dimensions relevant to technology-based interventions and provide sample evaluation criteria, focusing on the intervention itself rather than study design considerations (eg, trial management). This information may be useful for research and development communities (academic, clinical, or industry) to inform comprehensive feasibility studies that examine unique aspects of technology-based interventions to promote real-world impact. This contribution encourages greater harmonization of terminology and evaluation methods to streamline interpretation and comparison across studies.

Indexed as

biomedical technologydisabled personsfeasibility studiesrehabilitationresearch designself-help devices

Identifiers

PMID41980239
PMCPMC13078705

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.