Table 5.

Summary of user’s satisfaction and acceptability of studies in this review.

Author, Year & soft robotic glove model	Outcome measures	Results & feedbacks
Brokaw et al.252011HandSOME	Participant feedbacks	Positive feedbacks; glove generally comfortable; majority of participants reported that they would be interested in using the glove at home. However, due to shoulder weakness, the added weight due to the glove restricted upper limb mobility due to increased relative muscular demand.
Chen et al.272017HandSOME	1) Number of participants who completed the program 2) Participant feedbacks	1) Three participants dropped out because of difficulties donning and doffing the glove and an absence of caregiver at home to assist.2) Participants generally positive about the treatment and report an increased use of their hand after the program.
Prange-Lasonder et al.15 2017HandinMind	1) System usability scale2) Use time	1) Mean score (SD) 73.1 (24.2) 2) Assistive support group: one participant used the glove 30 min a day (∼200 min per week) whereas the other participant used the glove only once a week because she felt it was too cumbersome donning the glove by herself relative to its corresponding gains.Training support group: Participants followed scheduled (180 min per week).
Vanoglio et al.32 2017Gloreha Professionnal	1) Number of participants who completed the program2) Side effects3) Perceived operator difficulty using a visual analog scale (VAS)4) Cost analysis	1) Three participants did not complete the program in the control group due to acute hospital transfer for infection and one participant in the treatment group due to reactivated rheumatoid arthritis.2) All participants accepted to use the glove.3) Mean value reported for the first three days 5.13 (1.6) and 1.16 (0.26) for the last 27 days.4) Treatment group: 237.20 euro/participant for 30 days and control group: 480 euro/participant.
Yap et al.18 2017 Not reported	1) Usefulness-Satisfacation-and-Ease-of-use questionnaire (USE)a) Usefulness b) Ease of use c) Ease of learningd) Satisfaction 2) Participant feedbacksa) Comfort levelb) Desire to usec) Desire to purchase	1) a) Mean score (SD) 5.9 (0.3)b) Mean score (SD) 6.4 (0.4)c) Mean score (SD) 6.6 (0.2)d) Mean score (SD) 6.6 (0.5) 2)a) Mean score (SD) 6.0 (1.4)b) Mean score (SD) 6.5 (0.7) c) Mean score (SD) 5.0 (1.4)
Bernocchi et al.31 2018	1) Number of participants who completed the program2) Minutes of exercise and number of sessions/patients performed3) Participant feedbacks	1) Seventeen participants completed the program. Four patients interrupted the program: one died one had a new stroke event, one was transferred to a rest home and one withdrew consent.2) Over a mean period of 56.1 (17.18) days, participants completed a total of 1699 (808.97) min/participant divided in 5.1 (1.75) days/week of home exercises with the glove.3) Difficulties in donning the glove by caregivers, because of edema two gloves have been replaced. The glove was well tolerated by participants.
Cappello et al.26 2018Not reported	Participant feedbacks	No discomfort associated to the use of the glove was reported. All participants stated that they could benefit of using the glove during the performance of their daily domestic activities; the glove is light weight; the glove is difficult to don independently.
Radder et al.,34 2018HandinMind	1) Participant feedbacks2) System Usability Scale (SUS)3) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)	1) All participants could don and doff the glove, closing the zips was not possible for all participants; the thickness of the fabric reduced sensation was experienced. Difficulties performing fine motor subtasks with the glove; appreciation of grip support during gross motor activities. For some participants, their hand became warm and sweaty when using the glove.2) The median score at session 1 was 80.0 (Interquartile range 70.0–88.8) and the median score at session 2 was 77.5 (interquartile range 75.0–87.5). The lowest SUS score was 65. 3) Each part of the IMI was rated very positively by all participants with a total score between 6.1 and 6.3/7.
Scott et al.28 2018FES Hand Glove 200	1) Skin integrity2) Wrist/finger joints deformity3) Hand pain during intervention, Scale 0–10 (location)4) Occurrence of Automatic Dysreflexia	1) Intact or unchanged after protocol.2) No wrist/finger joints deformity after protocol.3) No increased pain documented except for one participant out of 14 but unrelated to the use of the glove.4) No occurrence of autonomic dysreflexia.
Kim et al.30 2019Hand of Hope	1) Participant feedbacks2) Adverse events3) Compliance rates	1) Hand feels less tight; increase the perceived ease of use of the hand after training; increase in attention; not changed with the hand after the program; increase in mobility; need longer therapy.2) Skin pinching or rubbing near the proximal interphalangeal joints on the dorsal side of the hand for 58% of participants. Muscle fatigue at the shoulder was reported for 50% of participants and cognitive fatigue for 25%.3) All participants tolerated and completed the program.
Yurkewich et al.35 2019HERO Glove	Participant feedbacks	Participants saw the glove as an affordable assistive and rehabilitative device for performing daily tasks with more independence and ease. Its light weight, portability, ease of donning and use were appreciated by the participants. However, participants reported that its robustness, grip strength comfort and aesthetic should be improved to be use during daily tasks at home.

SD: standard deviation.