Advertisement

Preliminary Extraction of Themes from a Review About User Perspectives on Assistive Technology for the Upper Limb After Stroke

  • A. L. van Ommeren
  • G. B. Prange-Lasonder
  • J. S. Rietman
  • P. H. Veltink
  • J. H. Buurke
Conference paper
Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 15)

Abstract

Use of assistive technology to support the upper extremity of stoke survivors seems promising. Attention for the needs and preferences of the end-user from the start of the design is crucial to avoid device abandonment. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the factors that play a role in the successful use of upper extremity assistive technology in rehabilitation and daily life activities of stroke survivors through a systematic analysis of the literature. Six qualitative studies have been retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and additional reference tracking. Analysis of user expressions resulted in the specification of three overarching themes: accessibility, usage and personalization.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is partly funded by Horizon 2020 (call ICT-22-2014) under grant no. 64400.

References

  1. 1.
    E.S. Lawrence et al., Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke 32, 1279–1284 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO, Recommendations on stroke prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Report of the WHO Task Force on Stroke and other Cerebrovascular Disorders, Stroke, 20, 1407–1431 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Maciejasz, J. Eschweiler, K. Gerlach-Hahn, A. Jansen-Troy, S. Leonhardt, A survery on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 11 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Radder et al., User-centred input for a wearable soft-robotic glove supporting hand function in daily life, in IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.M. Hughes et al., Translation of evidence-based assistive technologies into stroke rehabilitation: users’ perceptions of the barriers and opportunities. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.J. Reinkensmeyer et al., Major trends in mobility technology research and development: overview of the results of the NSF-WTEC European study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 9 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Balasubramanian, J. Klein, E. Burdet, Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 23, 661–670 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.B. Prange et al., User requirements for assistance of the supporting hand in bimanual daily activities via a robotic glove for severely affected stroke patients, in IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (2016), http://www.casp-uk.net. Accessed 24 Sep 2015
  10. 10.
    J. Thomas, A. Harden, Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Finley, S. Combs, User perceptions of gaming interventions for improving upper extremity motor function in persons with chronic stroke. Physiotherapy Theory Pract. 29, 195–201 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Nasr et al., The experience of living with stroke and using technology: opportunities to engage and co-design with end users. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.Y. Lam et al., Perceptions of technology and its use for therapeutic application for individuals with hemiparesis: findings from adult and pediatric focus groups. JMIR Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Sivan et al., Investigating the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) framework to capture user needs in the concept stage of rehabilitation technology development. Assist. Technol.: Official J. RESNA 26, 164–173 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Demain et al, Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Abras, D. Maloney-Krichmar, J. Preece, User-centered design, in W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 37 (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004) pp. 445–456Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.I. Batavia, G.S. Hammer, Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 27, 425–436 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. L. van Ommeren
    • 1
  • G. B. Prange-Lasonder
    • 1
  • J. S. Rietman
    • 1
  • P. H. Veltink
    • 2
  • J. H. Buurke
    • 1
  1. 1.Roessingh Research and DevelopmentUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations