ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Early occupational therapy use of a 3D printer introduced with minimal formal support: a single-site pre-post observational study.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Three-dimensional (3D) printers can produce customized assistive devices in occupational therapy; however, occupational therapists' perceptions and early usage following clinical introduction remain poorly understood. This study examined perceptions, perceived barriers and enabling conditions, and early usage patterns among occupational therapists following 3D printer introduction in a rehabilitation hospital with minimal formal implementation support. Methods: A 3D printer was installed in the occupational therapy department, allowing trial printing of existing design data after brief basic instruction was provided to one representative therapist; no structured staff training, CAD instruction, formal usage recommendations, workflow integration, or dedicated institutional support was provided. A self-administered study-specific, non-validated questionnaire assessed perceptions and selected implementation-related conditions before and six months after installation. Paired data from 43 participants (follow-up rate: 79.6%) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests. Results: After installation, selection of the barrier "there is no 3D printer in the workplace" significantly decreased (adjusted Discussion: The introduction of a printer with minimal formal support was not accompanied by clear progression toward routine clinical use during the six-month observation period. These exploratory findings support further evaluation of structured education, technical assistance, workflow integration, and institutional arrangements, but do not establish their effectiveness or the causal effect of printer availability.
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.