ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Acceptance of an upper body exoskeleton for occupational tasks among soldiers.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated the user experience and perceived acceptance of a shoulder exoskeleton during Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) tasks in a military context. While laboratory research on the same system has shown measurable reductions in muscle activity of 29%-41%, the present field study focused on how end users subjectively evaluate the exoskeleton. Methods: Twenty-seven soldiers of the German Armed Forces tested the exoskeleton for approximately 30 min while completing standardized scenarios, including overhead lifting, vehicle decontamination with a spray lance, and casualty rescue. Immediately afterward, participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing usability, wearing comfort, impact on work routine, perceived support, usefulness, skepticism, and intention to use. Results: Overall, the exoskeleton was rated as easy to operate (mean item score: 5.15 ± 1.31 on a 7-point scale) and reasonably comfortable to wear (4.64 ± 1.31). Compatibility with work routines and perceived usefulness received moderate ratings (3.79 ± 1.53 and 3.05 ± 1.64, respectively), whereas the perceived mechanical support was notably low (2.78 ± 1.78). Skepticism (2.27 ± 1.08), and intentions to use the system were moderate (3.42 ± 2.08). Discussion: The user feedback suggests that while the current design is usable and generally comfortable, acceptance may improve substantially if future systems provide a higher amount of support and an expanded functionality to address a wider variety of tasks. These findings underscore that, beyond biomechanical effectiveness, user acceptance is a critical factor for the successful implementation of exoskeletons as occupational health interventions.
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.