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

Abstract

BackgroundAdvances 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsFocus groups were held to collect data. Data were analyzed thematically.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Evaluation of a Novel Wellness Assessment Device (Preventiometer): A Feasibility Pilot Study

“…13–17 This has been shown in several previous studies with innovative medical devices and medical technologies. 14,15,18–30 Participants’ preferences and ratings are also crucial for further development of the new devices, which includes additional innovation, documentation of adverse events, adherence to regulatory requirements, and risk assessment. 13,31 Our survey captured participants’ assessments in 4 main domains: overall assessment, perception of outcomes, utility of the Preventiometer, and ratings of all tests individually.…”

Perspectives on the prospective development of stroke-specific lower extremity wearable monitoring technology: a qualitative focus group study with physical therapists and individuals with stroke

“…The notion of variability in stroke rehabilitation, whether in therapeutic approach or in patient presentation, is important to accept when beginning to develop wearable technology, as it is unlikely that any single device or function will be useful to all therapists and their clients. In a similar qualitative study in which the authors explored the perceptions of therapists and people with stroke on robotic devices for the upper extremity, one theme revolved around the heterogeneity of arm impairment and therapist focus as a challenge to developing new devices [43]. However, regardless of this challenge of variability, the potential benefit of developing stroke-specific wearable monitoring technology was voiced by all participants in our study.…”

“…Characteristics that would detract from usability and wearability included difficult set-up, discomfort, prolonged calibration, and other flaws that could ultimately stymy the uptake of future devices. Other research on the development of wearable devices for stroke or other populations list similar design flaws to this effect [43,52,53]. Thus, for the development of any future wearable monitoring technology, it is important to thoroughly consider the ways in which a device may or may not be usable or wearable.…”

Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review

“…Users remarked that the ease of use of devices was a barrier to the on-going use of assistive technology. Users wanted devices that were simple to use and operate [49,[51][52][53]55,57,58,[61][62][63]67,69,73,74,76,[78][79][80]82,83,85]. The ease of set-up of their assistive technology for example how difficult or how much of a 'hassle' a device was to set-up would influence the users decision to use assistive technology [55,58,61,62,73,76,85].…”

“…Users wanted devices that were simple to use and operate [49,[51][52][53]55,57,58,[61][62][63]67,69,73,74,76,[78][79][80]82,83,85]. The ease of set-up of their assistive technology for example how difficult or how much of a 'hassle' a device was to set-up would influence the users decision to use assistive technology [55,58,61,62,73,76,85]. Another barrier with the design of assistive technology related to the lack of customisation to the end user needs.…”