Occupational therapists’ evaluation of the perceived usability and utility of wearable soft robotic exoskeleton gloves for hand function rehabilitation following a stroke

References

• Lawrence ES, Coshall C, Dundas R, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1279–1284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain N, Alt Murphy M, Sunnerhagen KS. Upper limb Kinematics in stroke and healthy controls Using Target-to-Target Task in Virtual reality. Front Neurol. 2018;9:300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pundik S, McCabe J, Skelly M, et al. Association of spasticity and motor dysfunction in chronic stroke. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;62(6):397–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatem SM, Saussez G, della Faille M, et al. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, et al. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(6):463–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasell R, Hussein N. Stroke rehabilitation clinician handbook. London: Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation; 2020. Chapter 2, Brain reorganization, recovery and organized care; p.1–64.
   Google Scholar
• Salas E, Rosen MA, DiazGranados D. Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. J Manag. 2010;36(4):941–973.
   Google Scholar
• Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(7):620–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang CE, MacDonald JR, Reisman DS, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692–1698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd LA, Winstein CJ. Explicit information interferes with implicit motor learning of both continuous and discrete movement tasks after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2006;30(2):46–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernhardt J, Chan J, Nicola I, et al. Little therapy, little physical activity: rehabilitation within the first 14 days of organized stroke unit care. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39(1):43–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancause N, Nudo RJ. Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury. In: Progress in brain research. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 2011. p. 273–295.
   Google Scholar
• Mudge S, Hart A, Murugan S, et al. What influences the implementation of the New Zealand stroke guidelines for physiotherapists and occupational therapists? Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(5):511–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proulx CE, Beaulac M, David M, et al. Review of the effects of soft robotic gloves for activity-based rehabilitation in individuals with reduced hand function and manual dexterity following a neurological event. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020;7:2055668320918130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutner NG, Zhang R, Butler AJ, et al. Quality-of-life change associated with robotic-assisted therapy to improve hand motor function in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2010;90(4):493–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrew I, Batavia J, Guy SH. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27(4):425–436.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mankins JC. Technology readiness levels. White Pap April. 1995;6(1995):1995.
   Google Scholar
• Klug F, Hessinger M, Koka T, et al. An Anthropomorphic Soft Exosuit for Hand Rehabilitation. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019; 2019 :1121–1126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res. 1991;40(2):120–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O, Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, et al. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(1):20–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest G, Namey E, Taylor J, et al. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(6):693–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1996;189(194):4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud. 2013;8(2):29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Sauro J. A practical guide to the system usability scale: background, benchmarks & best practices. Denver (CO): Measuring Usability LLC; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Q. 2003;27:425–478.
   Web of Science ®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
• IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Bayley MT, Hurdowar A, Richards CL, et al. Barriers to implementation of stroke rehabilitation evidence: findings from a multi-site pilot project. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(19):1633–1638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elnady A, Mortenson WB, Menon C. Perceptions of existing wearable robotic devices for upper extremity and suggestions for their development: findings from therapists and people with stroke. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5(1):e12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Radder B, Kottink A, Van Der Vaart N, et al. User-centred input for a wearable soft-robotic glove supporting hand function in daily life.  IEEE International conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR); IEEE; 2015. p. 502–507.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai Y-L, Huang J-J, Pu S-W, et al. Usability assessment of a cable-driven exoskeletal robot for hand rehabilitation. Front Neurorobotics. 2019;13:3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loignon C, Hudon C, Goulet É, et al. Perceived barriers to healthcare for persons living in poverty in Quebec, Canada: the EQUIhealThY project. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):4–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durocher E, Wang RH, Bickenbach J, et al. Just access”? Questions of equity in access and funding for assistive technology. Ethics Behav. 2019;29(3):172–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lemay A. Allocation des ressources aux établissements de santé et services sociaux - Pistes et balises pour implanter le financement à l’activité [Internet]. Association québécoise d’établissements de santé et de services sociaux, editor. Montréal; 2012. [cited 2021 May 24]. Available from: https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2456589.
   Google Scholar
• Eicher C, Haesner M, Spranger M, et al. Usability and acceptability by a younger and older user group regarding a mobile robot-supported gait rehabilitation system. Assist Technol. 2019;31(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Sauro J. Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. J Usability Stud. 2018;13(3):158–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar