Understanding Changes in the Motivation of Stroke Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation in Hospital

  • Michelle PickrellEmail author
  • Bert Bongers
  • Elise van den Hoven
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9638)


Stroke patient motivation can fluctuate during rehabilitation due to a range of factors. This study reports on qualitative research, consisting of observations of stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation and interviews with patients about the changes in motivation they identified during their time completing rehabilitation in the hospital. We found a range of positive and negative factors which affect motivation. Positive factors include improvements in patient movement and support from other patients and family members. Negative factors include pain and psychological issues such as changes in mood. From this fieldwork, a set of design guidelines has been developed to act as a platform for researchers and designers developing equipment for the rehabilitation of stroke patients.


Rehabilitation Stroke Healthcare Feedback Design research 



We would like to thank all the patients and physiotherapists who contributed to this study. The study is completed under ethics approval (HREC/12/CRGH/185) and (SSA/13/LPOOL/80). This research was supported by STW VIDI grant number 016.128.303 of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), awarded to Elise van den Hoven.


  1. 1.
    Balaam, M., Rennick Egglestone, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Rodden, T., Hughes, A., Wilkinson, A., Nind, T., Axelrod, L., Harris, E., Ricketts, I., Mawson, S., Burridge, J.: Motivating mobility: designing for lived motivation in stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 3073–3082. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holmqvist, L.W., Koch, L.: Environmental factors in stroke rehabilitation: being in hospital itself demotivates patients. Br. Med. J. 322, 1501 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., Rudd, A.: The concept of patient motivation: a qualitative analysis of stroke professionals’ attitudes. Stroke 33, 444–448 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosewilliam, S., Roskell, C., Pandyan, A.D.: A systematic review and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centered goal setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clin. Rehabil. 25, 501–514 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellstom, K., Lindmark, B., Wahlberg, B., Fugl-Meyer, A.R.: Self-efficacy in relation to impairments and activities of daily living disability in elderly patients with stroke: a prospective investigation. J. Rehabil. Med. 35, 202–207 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wunsch, M., Stibe, A., Millonig, A., Seer, S., Dai, C., Schechtner, K., Chin, R.C.C.: What makes you bike? Exploring persuasive strategies to encourage low-energy mobility. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 53–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., Gandhi, M.P.: Chick clique: persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise. In: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2006), pp. 1873–1878. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pickrell, M., Bongers, B., van den Hoven, E.: Understanding persuasion and motivation in interactive stroke rehabilitation. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 15–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W., Landay, J.A.: Goal-setting considerations for persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 1–8, ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fogg, B.J.: Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 1–6. ACM, California (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van den Berg, M., Sherrington, C., Hassett, L., Killington, M., Smith, S.T., Bongers, A.J., Hassett, L., Crotty, M.: Video and computer-based interactive exercises in geriatric and neurological rehabilitation wards. J. Physiotherapy (2016, accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E.: Persuasive technology for human well-being: setting the scene. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 1–5. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, S.T., Schoene, D.: The use of exercise-based videogames for training and rehabilitation of physical function in older adults: current practice and guidelines for future research. Aging Health. 8, 243–252 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caplan, L.: Stroke. Demost Medical Publishing, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lincoln, N.B., Kneebone, I.I., Macniven, C.M.: Psychological Management of Stroke, pp. 3–28. Wiley, Malden (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fasoli, S., Krebs, H., Hogan, N.: Robotic technology and stroke rehabilitation: translating research into practice. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 11, 11–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., Rudd, A.: Qualitative analysis of stroke patients’ in rehabilitation. Br. Med. J. 321, 1051–1054 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaughnessy, M., Resnick, B.M., Macko, R.F.: Testing a model of post-stroke exercise behavior. J. Rehabil. Nurs. 31, 2048–7940 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bongers, A.J., Smith, S.T.: Interactivating Rehabilitation through Active Multimodal Feedback and Guidance. In: Rocker, C., Ziefle, M. (eds.) Smart Healthcare Applications and Services: Developments and Practices, pp. 236–260. IGI-Global, Pennsylvania (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hilland, T., Murphy, R., Stratton, G.: The Feasibility and Appropriateness of Utilising the Nintendo Wii during Stroke Rehabilitation to Promote Physical Activity, A report by the Liverpool John Moores University (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orji, R., Vassileva, J., Mandryk, R.: LunchTime: a slow-casual game for long-term dietary behaviour change. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17, 1211–1221 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Landay, J.: The design of eco-feedback technology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010), pp. 1999–2008. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bongers, A.J., Smith, S.T., Donker, V., Pickrell, M., Hall, R.: Interactive infrastructures – physical rehabilitation modules for pervasive healthcare technology. In: Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Pervasive Health – State of the Art and Beyond, pp. 229–254. Springer, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cockrell, J., Folstein, M.F.: Mini-mental state examination. In: Copeland, J.R.M., Abou-Saleh, M.T., Blazer, B.G. (eds.) Principles and Practice of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2nd edn, pp. 140–141. Wiley, Chichester (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    House, A.: Mood disorders after stroke a review of the evidence. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2, 211–221 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Pickrell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bert Bongers
    • 1
  • Elise van den Hoven
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Design, Architecture and BuildingUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and DesignUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations