A qualitative study to elicit user requirements for lower limb wearable exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation in spinal cord injury
Objective: We aim to determine a comprehensive set of requirements, perceptions, and expectations that people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and the clinicians in charge of their rehabilitation have regarding the use of wearable robots (WR) for gait rehabilitation. Background: There are concerns due...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/343535 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/343535 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Experience Physical disabilities Qualitative methods Usability testing and evaluation Usability/acceptance measurement and research. |
| Sumario: | Objective: We aim to determine a comprehensive set of requirements, perceptions, and expectations that people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and the clinicians in charge of their rehabilitation have regarding the use of wearable robots (WR) for gait rehabilitation. Background: There are concerns due to the limited user acceptance of WR for gait rehabilitation. Developers need to emphasize understanding the needs and constraints of all stakeholders involved, including the real-life dynamics of rehabilitation centers. Methods: 15 people with SCI, 9 without experience with WR and 6 with experience with these technologies, and 10 clinicians from 3 rehabilitation centers in Spain were interviewed. A directed content analysis approach was used. Results: 78 codes grouped into 9 categories (physical results, usability, psychology-related codes, technical characteristics, activities, acquisition issues, context of use, development of the technologies and clinical rehabilitation context) were expressed by at least 20% of the users interviewed, of whom 16 were not found in the literature. The agreement percentage between each group and subgroup included in the study, calculated as the number of codes that more than 20% of both groups expressed, divided over the total amount of codes any of those two groups agreed on (≥ 20%), showed limited agreement between patients and clinicians (50.00%) and between both types of patients (55.77%). The limited accessibility and availability of lower limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation arose in most of the interviews. Conclusions: The limited agreement percentage between patients and clinicians indicates that including both types of users in the design process of these technologies is important, given that their requirements are complementary. Engaging users with prior technology experience is recommended, as they often exhibit strong internal consensus and articulate well-defined requirements. This study adds up the knowledge available in the literature and the new codes found in our data, which enlighten important aspects that ought to be addressed in the field to develop technologies that respond to users’ needs, are usable and feasible to implement in their intended contexts. Application: The set of criteria summarized in our study will be useful to guide the design, development, and evaluation of WR for gait rehabilitation to meet user’s needs and allow them to be implemented in their intended context of use. |
|---|