Skip to main content

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

medRxiv logoLink to medRxiv
[Preprint]. 2024 Mar 7:2024.03.05.24303809. [Version 1] doi: 10.1101/2024.03.05.24303809

Uncovering clinical rehabilitation technology trends: field observations, mixed methods analysis, and data visualization

Courtney Celian, Hannah Redd, Kevin Smaller, Partha Ryali, James L Patton, David J Reinkensmeyer, Miriam R Rafferty
PMCID: PMC10942504  PMID: 38496469

ABSTRACT

Objective

To analyze real-world rehabilitation technology (RT) use, with a view toward enhancing RT development and adoption.

Design

A convergent, mixed-methods study using direct field observations, semi-structured templates, and summative content analysis.

Setting

Ten neurorehabilitation units in a single health system.

Participants

3 research clinicians (1OT, 2PTs) observed ∼60 OTs and 70 PTs in inpatient; ∼18 OTs and 30 PTs in outpatient.

Interventions

Not applicable

Main Outcome Measures

Characteristics of RT, time spent setting up and using RT, and clinician behaviors.

Results

90 distinct devices across 15 different focus areas were inventoried. 329 RT-uses were documented over 44 hours with 42% of inventoried devices used. RT was used more during interventions (72%) than measurement (28%). Intervention devices used frequently were balance/gait (39%), strength/endurance (30%), and transfer/mobility training (16%). Measurement devices were frequently used to measure vitals (83%), followed by grip strength (7%), and upper extremity function (5%). Device characteristics were predominately AC-powered (56%), actuated (57%), monitor-less (53%), multi-use (68%), and required little familiarization (57%). Set-up times were brief (mean ± SD = 3.8±4.21 and 0.8±1.3 for intervention and measurement, respectively); more time was spent with intervention RT (25.6±15) than measurement RT (7.3±11.2). RT nearly always involved verbal instructions (72%) with clinicians providing more feedback on performance (59.7%) than on results (30%). Therapists’ attention was split evenly between direct attention towards the patient during clinician treatment (49.7%) and completing other tasks such as documentation (50%).

Conclusions

Even in a tech-friendly hospital, majority of available RT were observed un-used, but identifying these usage patterns is crucial to predict eventual adoption of new designs from earlier stages of RT development. An interactive data visualization page supplement is provided to facilitate this study.

Full Text Availability

The license terms selected by the author(s) for this preprint version do not permit archiving in PMC. The full text is available from the preprint server.


Articles from medRxiv are provided here courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Preprints

RESOURCES