ArticleDigital health
Healthcare professionals' awareness, perceptions, and adoption of robotic-assisted rehabilitation technologies for stroke recovery.
Article in Digital health. 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: Robotic-assisted rehabilitation technologies (RAT) are promising tools for stroke recovery, offering repetitive, task-specific, and feedback-driven training. Yet, their integration into routine clinical practice in Saudi Arabia remains limited. This study examined healthcare professionals' awareness, perceptions, and adoption of RAT for stroke rehabilitation in Jeddah. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 healthcare professionals (neurologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists) from major hospitals in Jeddah. Data were collected using a validated questionnaire covering demographics, awareness, perceptions, adoption, and future outlook regarding RAT. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied, with p < 0.05 indicating significance. Results: Overall, 59.7% of participants had heard of RAT, but only 50% reported moderate understanding. Perceptions were generally positive, with 54.5% rating RAT as effective and 54% as safe. However, clinical adoption was low (30.4%), and usage was mostly rare (59.4%). Adoption was significantly associated with age, professional role, and years of experience (p < 0.05). Key barriers included high cost (32.4%), limited availability (23.8%), insufficient training (23.3%), and lack of awareness (20.5%). More than half of respondents (53%) believed RAT would play a pivotal role in future stroke rehabilitation, citing improved accessibility, cost reduction, and enhanced training as key facilitators. Conclusion: Awareness and perceptions of RAT among healthcare professionals in Jeddah are moderate to positive, yet clinical adoption remains limited due to cost, training, and accessibility barriers. Enhancing knowledge, providing targeted training, and developing supportive policies are essential to align RAT implementation with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 objectives for advanced healthcare innovation.
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.