Therapists’ experience of training and implementing an exoskeleton in a rehabilitation centre

References

• Pirker W, Katzenschlager R. Gait disorders in adults and the elderly: a clinical guide. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(3–4):81–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankovic J. Gait disorders. Neurol Clin. 2015;33(1):249–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louie DR, Eng JJ, Lam T. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12(1):82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dollar AM, Herr H. Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008;24(1):144–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff J, Parker C, Borisoff J, et al. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes A-M, Burridge JH, Demain SH, et al. Translation of evidence-based assistive technologies into stroke rehabilitation: users’ perceptions of the barriers and opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisahn C, Aach M, Jansen O, et al. The effectiveness and safety of exoskeletons as assistive and rehabilitation devices in the treatment of neurologic gait disorders in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2016;6(8):822–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen G, Chan CK, Guo Z, et al. A review of lower extremity assistive robotic exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapy. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2013;41(4–5):343–363.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galinski D, Sapin J, Dehez B. Optimal design of an alignment-free two-DOF rehabilitation robot for the shoulder complex. In: 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Vol 2013. IEEE; 2013. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Mikołajewska E, Mikołajewski D. Exoskeletons in neurological diseases – current and potential future applications. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2011;20(2):227–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turchetti G, Vitiello N, Trieste L, et al. Why effectiveness of robot-mediated neurorehabilitation does not necessarily influence its adoption. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;7:143–153.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gálvez-Zúñiga MA, Aceves-López A. A review on compliant joint mechanisms for lower limb exoskeletons. J Robot. 2016;2016:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herr H. Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6(1):21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong YW, King Y-J, Yeo We H. Lower extremity exoskeleton: review and challenges surrounding the technology and its role in rehabilitation of lower limbs. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2013;7(7):520–524.
   Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Bode RK. Factors influencing therapists’ decision-making in the acceptance of new technology devices in stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90(5):415–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller L, Zimmermann A, Herbert W. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Med Devices Evid Res. 2016;9:455–466.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2003;27(3):425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craven C, Verrier M, Balioussis C, et al. Rehabilitation environmental scan: capturing capacity in Canadian SCI rehabilitation. Canada: Rick Hansen Inst, 2016; [cited 2020 Jun 30]. Available from:https://praxisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/RHESCANATLAS2012WEB_2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsen P, Roback K, Broström A, et al. Creatures of habit: accounting for the role of habit in implementation research on clinical behaviour change. Implement Sci. 2012;7:53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mytton OT, Velazquez A, Banken R, et al. Introducing new technology safely. J Biomed Inform. 2010;19(Suppl 2):i9–i14.
   Google Scholar
• Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, et al. Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Hum Relations. 2002;55(12):1429–1449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulboacă A, Bolboacă SD, Bulboacă A. Ethical considerations in providing an upper limb exoskeleton device for stroke patients. Med Hypotheses. 2017;101:61–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):274–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2003;15(1):1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorgey A, Sumrell R, Goetz L. Exoskeletal assisted rehabilitation after spinal cord injury. In: Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. 5th ed. Canada: Elsevier, 2018. p. 440–447.
   Google Scholar
• Gorgey AS. Robotic exoskeletons: the pros and cons. World J Orthop. 2018;9(9):112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar