Occupational Exoskeletons as a Technological Solution for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators for Sustainable Workplace Integration.

D M van Laar, H J Bieleman, C S I Rijnders, D P Saakes, M F Reneman, C C Roossien

Abstract readSystematic Review

In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 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

6 authors.

D M van LaarDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. d.m.van.laar@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-3299-7423

H J BielemanResearch Group Smart Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, M.H. Tromplaan 28, Enschede, The Netherlands.

C S I RijndersDepartment of Bio‑inspired MEMS and Biomedical Devices, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Engineering and Technology Institute Groningen (ENTEG), University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.

D P SaakesFaculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, De Horst 2, 7522 LW, Enschede, The Netherlands.

M F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.

C C RoossienDepartment of Bio‑inspired MEMS and Biomedical Devices, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Engineering and Technology Institute Groningen (ENTEG), University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek KICH1.GZ04.22.004

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWidespread adoption of occupational exoskeletons (OEX) depends on various human and environmental factors. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of facilitators and barriers influencing OEX implementation, according to users and interest holders.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE identified 28 studies on active or passive OEX and opinions on acceptance or rejection during implementation.

resultsFacilitators were reported slightly more often than barriers (128 times vs. 110 times), with 70 facilitators and 67 barriers identified. Barriers were most frequently associated with the Device domain (36.4%), followed by the Person/User (24.5%), Work/Job (20.0%), Company/Management (14.5%), and Attitude (4.5%) domains. In contrast, facilitators were primarily linked to the Person/User domain (28.1%), closely followed by the Work/Job domain (26.6%) and then the Device (20.3%), Company/Management (18.8%), and Attitude (6.3%) domains. Studies with short OEX exposure reported fewer barriers than those without actual OEX use or experience (25 vs. 50). Overall risk of bias was moderate across study designs, with common issues including limited reporting, small or convenience samples, and the unavoidable absence of blinding in trials.

conclusionOEX adoption is shaped by multiple factors, some acting as both facilitators and barriers. User-centered strategies (such as training and hands-on familiarization) are critical, as short-term exposure appears to reduce barriers. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD420251090106).

Indexed as

AcceptanceBarriersFacilitatorsImplementationOccupational exoskeletonRejection

Identifiers

PMID42098532

DOI10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.