Perceptions of Existing Wearable Robotic Devices for Upper Extremity and Suggestions for Their Development: Findings From Therapists and People With Stroke

Ahmed Elnady, W Ben Mortenson, Carlo Menon, Ahmed Elnady, W Ben Mortenson, Carlo Menon

Abstract

Background: Advances in wearable robotic technologies have increased the potential of these devices for rehabilitation and as assistive devices. However, the utilization of these devices is still limited and there are questions regarding how well these devices address users' (therapists and patients) needs.

Objective: The aims of this study were to (1) describe users' perceptions about existing wearable robotic devices for the upper extremity; (2) identify if there is a need to develop new devices for the upper extremity and the desired features; and (3) explore obstacles that would influence the utilization of these new devices.

Methods: Focus groups were held to collect data. Data were analyzed thematically.

Results: A total of 16 participants took part in the focus group discussions. Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) "They exist, but..." described participants' perceptions about existing devices for upper extremity; (2) "Indeed, we need more, can we have it all?" reflected participants' desire to have new devices for the upper extremity and revealed heterogeneity among different participants; and (3) "Bumps on the road" identified challenges that the participants felt needed to be taken into consideration during the development of these devices.

Conclusions: This study resonates with previous research that has highlighted the importance of involving end users in the design process. The study suggests that having a single solution for stroke rehabilitation or assistance could be challenging or even impossible, and thus, engineers should clearly identify the targeted stroke population needs before the design of any device for the upper extremity.

Keywords: focus group; qualitative research; rehabilitation; upper extremity; wearable devices.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Ahmed Elnady, W Ben Mortenson, Carlo Menon. Originally published in JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (http://rehab.jmir.org), 15.05.2018.

References

    1. Writing Group Members. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, Das SR, de Ferranti S, Després JP, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Isasi CR, Jiménez MC, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, Mackey RH, Magid DJ, McGuire DK, Mohler 3rd ER, Moy CS, Muntner P, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Rodriguez CJ, Rosamond W, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Woo D, Yeh RW, Turner MB, American Heart Association Statistics Committee. Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016 Jan 26;133(4):e38–360. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350.
    1. Ovbiagele B, Goldstein LB, Higashida RT, Howard VJ, Johnston SC, Khavjou OA, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Mohl S, Sacco RL, Saver JL, Trogdon JG, American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee and Stroke Council Forecasting the future of stroke in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013 Aug;44(8):2361–75. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e31829734f2.
    1. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dietz V. Neurorehabilitation Technology. New York City: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
    1. Pons JL, Ceres R, Caldern L. Introduction to Wearable Robotics. In: Pons PL, editor. Wearable Robots: Biomechatronic Exoskeletons. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008.
    1. Loureiro RC, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011 Oct;49(10):1103–18. doi: 10.1007/s11517-011-0797-0.
    1. Elnady AM, Zhang X, Xiao ZG, Yong X, Randhawa BK, Boyd L, Menon C. A single-session preliminary evaluation of an affordable BCI-controlled arm exoskeleton and motor-proprioception platform. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:168. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00168. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00168.
    1. Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Carrozza MC, Dario P, Minuco G. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 Sep;13(3):311–24. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352.
    1. Fazekas G, Horvath M, Toth A. A novel robot training system designed to supplement upper limb physiotherapy of patients with spastic hemiparesis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006 Sep;29(3):251–4. doi: 10.1097/01.mrr.0000230050.16604.d9.
    1. Fazekas G, Horvath M, Troznai T, Toth A. Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy for patients with spastic hemiparesis: a preliminary study. J Rehabil Med. 2007 Sep;39(7):580–2. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0087.
    1. Xiao ZG, Elnady AM, Menon C. Control an exoskeleton for forearm rotation using FMG. 2014 5th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics; August 12-15, 2014; Sao Paulo, Brazil. IEEE; 2014. pp. 591–596.
    1. Ziai A, Menon C. Comparison of regression models for estimation of isometric wrist joint torques using surface electromyography. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Sep 26;8:56. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-56.
    1. Chengani R, Delva ML, Sakr M, Menon C. Pilot study on strategies in sensor placement for robust hand/wrist gesture classification based on movement related changes in forearm volume. 2016 IEEE Healthcare Innovation Point-Of-Care Technologies Conference (HI-POCT); November 9-11, 2016; Cancun, Mexico. 2016. pp. 46–49.
    1. Elnady AM, Mohamadzadeh S, Jiang X, Menon C. Image processing approach to generate a control signal to drive an exoskeleton for upper extremity rehabilitation. 2016 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE); May 15-18, 2016; Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2016. pp. 1–4.
    1. Elnady AM, Zhang X, Randhawa BK, Menon C. Quantitative assessment of motor-proprioceptive deficits in nonparetic arm after stroke via a two-DOF passive manipulandum. 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob); June 26-29, 2016; Singapore. 2016. pp. 667–672.
    1. Herrnstadt G, Alavi N, Randhawa BK, Boyd LA, Menon C. Bimanual elbow robotic orthoses: preliminary investigations on an impairment force-feedback rehabilitation method. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:169. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00169. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00169.
    1. Looned R, Webb J, Xiao ZG, Menon C. Assisting drinking with an affordable BCI-controlled wearable robot and electrical stimulation: a preliminary investigation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Apr 07;11:51. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-51.
    1. Endsley M. Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.
    1. Keates S, Clarkson J. Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive Design. London: Springer-Verlag; 2003. pp. 438–453.
    1. Redström J. Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Stud. 2006 Mar;27(2):123–139. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.001.
    1. Gulliksen J, Göransson B, Boivie I, Blomkvist S, Persson J, Cajander Å. Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behav Inf Technol. 2003 Nov;22(6):397–409. doi: 10.1080/01449290310001624329.
    1. Norman D, Draper S. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. In: Norman D, editor. User Centered System Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1986. p. 544.
    1. Department of Health and Human Services Usability. [2018-04-10]. Benefits of User-Centered Design .
    1. Lund ML, Nygård L. Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. OTJR (Thorofare N J) 2016 Jun 23;23(2):67–75. doi: 10.1177/153944920302300204.
    1. Krantz O. Assistive devices utilisation in activities of everyday life--a proposed framework of understanding a user perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012 May;7(3):189–98. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2011.618212.
    1. Hochstenbach-Waelen A, Seelen HA. Embracing change: practical and theoretical considerations for successful implementation of technology assisting upper limb training in stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Aug 02;9:52. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-52.
    1. Glegg SM, Holsti L, Velikonja D, Ansley B, Brum C, Sartor D. Factors influencing therapists' adoption of virtual reality for brain injury rehabilitation. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013 May;16(5):385–401. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.1506.
    1. Krueger R, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009.
    1. Wall AL. Evaluating an undergraduate unit using a focus group. Qual Assur Educ. 2001 Mar;9(1):23–31. doi: 10.1108/09684880110381300.
    1. Hines T. An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus group interviews and cognitive maps) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making. Qual Mark Res. 2000 Mar;3(1):7–16. doi: 10.1108/13522750010310406.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    1. McColl MA, Roberts L, Smith E, Miller B. Sci-bc-database. 2015. [2018-04-10]. Policy governing support for mobility aids for people with disabilities in Canada .
    1. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. In: Teo T, editor. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. New York: Springer; 2014. pp. 1947–1952.
    1. Adams V, Kaufman SR. Ethnography and the making of modern health professionals. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;35(2):313–20. doi: 10.1007/s11013-011-9216-0.
    1. Almenara M, Cempini M, Gómez C, Cortese M, Martín C, Medina J, Vitiello N, Opisso E. Usability test of a hand exoskeleton for activities of daily living: an example of user-centered design. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017 Jan;12(1):84–96. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1079653.
    1. Hughes AM, Burridge JH, Demain SH, Ellis-Hill C, Meagher C, Tedesco-Triccas L, Turk R, Swain I. Translation of evidence-based assistive technologies into stroke rehabilitation: users' perceptions of the barriers and opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Mar 12;14:124. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-124.
    1. Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Jutai J, Speechley M. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(6):463–88. doi: 10.1310/tsr1606-463.
    1. Formaggio E, Storti SF, Boscolo Galazzo I, Gandolfi M, Geroin C, Smania N, Spezia L, Waldner A, Fiaschi A, Manganotti P. Modulation of event-related desynchronization in robot-assisted hand performance: brain oscillatory changes in active, passive and imagined movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Feb 26;10:24. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-24.
    1. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. J Am Med Assoc. 1996 Oct 09;276(14):1172–7.
    1. Portacolone E. The myth of independence for older Americans living alone in the Bay Area of San Francisco: a critical reflection. Ageing Soc. 2011 May 16;31(05):803–828. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X10001169.
    1. Silvers A. Better than new! Ethics for assistive technologists. In: Oishi MM, Mitchell IM, Van der Loos HF, editors. Design and Use of Assistive Technology. New York: Springer; 2011. pp. 3–15.
    1. Luborsky MR. Sociocultural factors shaping technology usage: fulfilling the promise. Technol Disabil. 1993 Jan 01;2(1):71–78. doi: 10.3233/TAD-1993-2110.
    1. Valdés BA, Schneider AN, Van der Loos HF. Reducing trunk compensation in stroke survivors: a randomized crossover trial comparing visual and force feedback modalities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Oct;98(10):1932–1940. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.03.034.
    1. Cherry CO, Chumbler NR, Richards K, Huff A, Wu D, Tilghman LM, Butler A. Expanding stroke telerehabilitation services to rural veterans: a qualitative study on patient experiences using the robotic stroke therapy delivery and monitoring system program. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017 Jan;12(1):21–27. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1061613.
    1. Lawler J, Dowswell G, Hearn J, Forster A, Young J. Recovering from stroke: a qualitative investigation of the role of goal setting in late stroke recovery. J Adv Nurs. 1999 Aug;30(2):401–9.
    1. Dowswell G, Lawler J, Dowswell T, Young J, Forster A, Hearn J. Investigating recovery from stroke: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2000 Jul;9(4):507–15.
    1. Fitzpatrick N, Presnell S. Can occupational therapists be hand therapists? Br J Occup Ther. 2016 Nov 05;67(11):508–510. doi: 10.1177/030802260406701107.
    1. Amini D. Occupational therapy interventions for work-related injuries and conditions of the forearm, wrist, and hand: a systematic review. Am J Occup Ther. 2011;65(1):29–36.
    1. Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, Buttar V, Ranson Q, Goertzen D. What factors determine therapists' acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation – a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(5):447–55. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.923529.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner