Table 3.
Thematic framework.
| Themes | People with limb difference (n=39), n (%) | Researchers (n=108), n (%) | |
| Usability | 6 (15.4) a | 11 (10.2) | |
| Accessibility | 4 (10.3) | 4 (3.7) | |
| Data management | 0 (0) | 2 (1.8) | |
| Hardware | 2 (5.1) | 5 (4.6) | |
| Training | 14 (35.9) | 38 (35.2) | |
| Muscle development and control | 4 (10.3) | 4 (3.7) | |
| Prosthetic ability | 7 (17.9) | 15 (13.9) | |
| Additional benefits for users | 2 (5.1) | 8 (7.4) | |
| Clinical and research benefits | 1 (2.6) | 4 (3.7) | |
| Education | 0 (0) | 4 (3.7) | |
| Feedback | 0 (0) | 3 (2.8) | |
| Game | 19 (48.7) | 32 (29.6) | |
| Affect | 5 (12.8) | 17 (15.7) | |
| Personalization | 3 (7.7) | 7 (6.5) | |
| Social aspects | 0 (0) | 1 (0.9) | |
| Mechanics | 11 (28.2) | 7 (6.5) | |
| Challenges | —b | 27 (25.0) | |
| Justification and reasoning | — | 11 (10.2) | |
| Design and development | — | 10 (9.3) | |
| Involvement | — | 2 (1.8) | |
| Recognition | — | 4 (3.7) | |
aItalicized values denote the subtotals for the respective main themes.
b—: Not available. People with limb difference were not asked about research-specific challenges.