Clinicians’ perspectives and usage of rehabilitation technology: a survey

References

• Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ. Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e2430. doi:10.2196/jmir.2430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signal NEJ, et al. What helps or hinders the uptake of new technologies into rehabilitation practice? In Converging clinical and engineering research on neurorehabilitation III. 2019. Cham: springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Elsner B. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8(8):CD002840. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002840.pub4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC, van Wegen EEH, et al. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(2):107–121. doi:10.1177/1545968316666957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo K, Stephenson M, Lockwood C. Effectiveness of robotic assisted rehabilitation for mobility and functional ability in adult stroke patients: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(12):3049–3091. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003456.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bunge LR, Davidson AJ, Helmore BR, et al. Effectiveness of powered exoskeleton use on gait in individuals with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0252193. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravi DK, Kumar N, Singhi P. Effectiveness of virtual reality rehabilitation for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: an updated evidence-based systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2017;103(3):245–258. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2016.08.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Shamy SM. Efficacy of Armeo® robotic therapy versus conventional therapy on upper limb function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;97(3):164–169. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modi N, Singh J. A survey of research trends in assistive technologies using information modelling techniques. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;17(6):605–623. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1817992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aqel MOA, et al. Review of recent research trends in assistive technologies for rehabilitation. In 2019 International Conference on Promising Electronic Technologies (ICPET). 2019. doi:10.1109/ICPET.2019.00011.
   Google Scholar
• Clark WE, Sivan M, O’Connor RJ. Evaluating the use of robotic and virtual reality rehabilitation technologies to improve function in stroke survivors: a narrative review. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2019;6:2055668319863557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens C, et al. An introduction to human factors engineering. 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Rennick-Egglestone S, Mawson S. Homes of stroke survivors are a challenging environment for rehabilitation technologies. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;8(2):e12029. doi:10.2196/12029.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, et al. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):1–8. doi:10.1080/17483100600845414.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keshner EA, Fung J. The quest to apply VR technology to rehabilitation: tribulations and treasures. J Vestib Res. 2017;27(1):1–5. doi:10.3233/VES-170610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina KI, Ricci NA, de Moraes SA, et al. Virtual reality using games for improving physical functioning in older adults: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):156. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Proffitt R, Lange B. Considerations in the efficacy and effectiveness of virtual reality interventions for stroke rehabilitation: moving the field forward. Phys Ther. 2015;95(3):441–448. doi:10.2522/ptj.20130571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bower KJ, Verdonck M, Hamilton A, et al. What factors influence clinicians’ use of technology in neurorehabilitation? A multisite qualitative study. Phys Ther. 2021;101(5):pzab031. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzab031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ommeren AL, Smulders LC, Prange-Lasonder GB, et al. Assistive technology for the upper extremities after stroke: systematic review of users’ needs. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5(2):e10510. doi:10.2196/10510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demain S, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, et al. Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):334. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burridge JH, Hughes A-M. Potential for new technologies in clinical practice. Curr Opin Neurol. 2010;23(6):671–677. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283402af5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager SK, Burnfield JM. Patients’ experiences with technology during inpatient rehabilitation: opportunities to support independence and therapeutic engagement. Disab Rehabil. 2014;9(2):121–127.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz H, Patzer D, Galen SS. Robotic exoskeletons for reengaging in everyday activities: promises, pitfalls, and opportunities. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(5):560–563. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1398786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose T, Nam CS, Chen KB. Immersion of virtual reality for rehabilitation – review. Appl Ergon. 2018;69:153–161. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.01.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNulty PA, Thompson-Butel AG, Faux SG, et al. The efficacy of wii-based movement therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in the chronic poststroke period: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke. 2015;10(8):1253–1260. doi:10.1111/ijs.12594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrholz J, Elsner B, Pohl M. Treadmill training for improving walking function after stroke: a major update of a cochrane review. Stroke. 2014;45(5):e76–e77. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrholz J, et al. Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD006876. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitago T, Goldsmith J, Harran M, et al. Robotic therapy for chronic stroke: general recovery of impairment or improved task-specific skill? J Neurophysiol. 2015;114(3):1885–1894. doi:10.1152/jn.00336.2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo K, Stephenson M, Lockwood C. Effectiveness of robotic assisted rehabilitation for mobility and functional ability in adult stroke patients: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(1):39–48. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-002957.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Langan J, Subryan H, Nwogu I, et al. Reported use of technology in stroke rehabilitation by physical and occupational therapists. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(7):641–647. doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1362043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards M, Cadena A, Manthey J. Use of tablet by occupational therapy practitioners. OT Practice. 2016;21(14):17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, et al. 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):447–455. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.923529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allouch SB, van Velsen L. Fit by bits: an explorative study of sports physiotherapists’ perception of quantified self technologies. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;247:296–300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morris J, Jones M, Thompson N, et al. Clinician perspectives on mRehab interventions and technologies for people with disabilities in the United States: a national survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4220. doi:10.3390/ijerph16214220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGovern MP, Fox TS, Xie H, et al. A survey of clinical practices and readiness to adopt evidence-based practices: dissemination research in an addiction treatment system. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;26(4):305–312. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.03.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutten LJF, St Sauver JL, Beebe TJ, et al. Clinician knowledge, clinician barriers, and perceived parental barriers regarding human papillomavirus vaccination: association with initiation and completion rates. Vaccine. 2017;35(1):164–169. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guntzviller LM. The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications, Inc., 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Aboujaoudé A, Bier N, Lussier M, et al. Canadian occupational therapists’ use of technology with older adults: a nationwide survey. OTJR. 2021;41(2):67–79. doi:10.1177/1539449220961340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni P, Duffy O, Synnott J, et al. Speech and language practitioners’ experiences of commercially available voice-assisted technology: web-Based survey study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;9(1):e29249. doi:10.2196/29249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glegg SMN, Levac DE. Barriers, facilitators and interventions to support virtual reality implementation in rehabilitation: a scoping review. Pm R. 2018;10(11):1237–1251.e1. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pilli K, Worne B, Simpson G. Clinician experiences with using assistive technology in brain injury rehabilitation: a survey of clinician capability, attitudes, and barriers. Brain Impairment. 2023;24(2):185–203. doi:10.1017/BrImp.2023.5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett LE, Jewell VD, Scheirton L, et al. Productivity standards and the impact on quality of care: a national survey of inpatient rehabilitation professionals. Open J Occup Ther. 2019;7(4):1–11. doi:10.15453/2168-6408.1598.
   Google Scholar
• Vaezipour A, Aldridge D, Koenig S, et al. “It’s really exciting to think where it could go”: a mixed-method investigation of clinician acceptance, barriers and enablers of virtual reality technology in communication rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(15):3946–3958. doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1895333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celian C, Swanson V, Shah M, et al. A day in the life: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making and uptake of neurorehabilitation technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):121. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00911-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chua KSG, Kuah CWK. Innovating with rehabilitation technology in the real world: promises, potentials, and perspectives. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(10 Suppl 1):S150–S156. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes CML, Padilla A, Hintze A, et al. Developing an mHealth app for post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation: feedback from US and ethiopian rehabilitation clinicians. Health Informatics J. 2020;26(2):1104–1117. doi:10.1177/1460458219868356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan KE, McKean AJ, Gentry MT, et al. Barriers to use of telepsychiatry: clinicians as gatekeepers. inMayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(12):2510–2523. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade VA, Eliott JA, Hiller JE. Clinician acceptance is the key factor for sustainable telehealth services. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(5):682–694. doi:10.1177/1049732314528809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott SD, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implementation Sci. 2012;7(1):1–17. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-70.
   Google Scholar
• Shachak A, Randhawa GK, Crampton NH. Educational approaches for improving physicians’ use of health information technology. Healthc Manage Forum. 2019;32(4):188–191. doi:10.1177/0840470419831717.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Grood C, Raissi A, Kwon Y, et al. Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:335–344. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S103881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar