Stroke Survivors' Interaction With Hand Rehabilitation Devices: Observational Study.

Chioma Obinuchi Wodu, Gillian Sweeney, Milena Slachetka, Andrew Kerr
{"title":"Stroke Survivors' Interaction With Hand Rehabilitation Devices: Observational Study.","authors":"Chioma Obinuchi Wodu, Gillian Sweeney, Milena Slachetka, Andrew Kerr","doi":"10.2196/54159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The hand is crucial for carrying out activities of daily living as well as social interaction. Functional use of the upper limb is affected in up to 55% to 75% of stroke survivors 3 to 6 months after stroke. Rehabilitation can help restore function, and several rehabilitation devices have been designed to improve hand function. However, access to these devices is compromised in people with more severe loss of function.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, we aimed to observe stroke survivors with poor hand function interacting with a range of commonly used hand rehabilitation devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were engaged in an 8-week rehabilitation intervention at a technology-enriched rehabilitation gym. The participants spent 50-60 minutes of the 2-hour session in the upper limb section at least twice a week. Each participant communicated their rehabilitation goals, and an Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) was used to measure and categorize hand function as poor (scores of 0-9), moderate (scores of 10-56), or good (score of 57). Participants were observed during their interactions with 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices that focused on hand rehabilitation: the GripAble, NeuroBall, and Semi-Circular Peg Board. Observations of device interactions were recorded for each session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 29 participants were included in this study, of whom 10 (34%) had poor hand function, 17 (59%) had moderate hand function, and 2 (7%) had good hand function. There were no differences in the age and years after stroke among participants with poor hand function and those with moderate (P=.06 and P=.09, respectively) and good (P=.37 and P=.99, respectively) hand function. Regarding the ability of the 10 participants with poor hand function to interact with the 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices, 2 (20%) participants with an ARAT score greater than 0 were able to interact with the devices, whereas the other 8 (80%) who had an ARAT score of 0 could not. Their inability to interact with these devices was clinically examined, and the reason was determined to be a result of either the presence of (1) muscle tone or stiffness or (2) muscle weakness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Not all stroke survivors with impairments in their hands can make use of currently available rehabilitation technologies. Those with an ARAT score of 0 cannot actively interact with hand rehabilitation devices, as they cannot carry out the hand movement necessary for such interaction. The design of devices for hand rehabilitation should consider the accessibility needs of those with poor hand function.</p>","PeriodicalId":87288,"journal":{"name":"JMIR biomedical engineering","volume":"9 ","pages":"e54159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR biomedical engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The hand is crucial for carrying out activities of daily living as well as social interaction. Functional use of the upper limb is affected in up to 55% to 75% of stroke survivors 3 to 6 months after stroke. Rehabilitation can help restore function, and several rehabilitation devices have been designed to improve hand function. However, access to these devices is compromised in people with more severe loss of function.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to observe stroke survivors with poor hand function interacting with a range of commonly used hand rehabilitation devices.

Methods: Participants were engaged in an 8-week rehabilitation intervention at a technology-enriched rehabilitation gym. The participants spent 50-60 minutes of the 2-hour session in the upper limb section at least twice a week. Each participant communicated their rehabilitation goals, and an Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) was used to measure and categorize hand function as poor (scores of 0-9), moderate (scores of 10-56), or good (score of 57). Participants were observed during their interactions with 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices that focused on hand rehabilitation: the GripAble, NeuroBall, and Semi-Circular Peg Board. Observations of device interactions were recorded for each session.

Results: A total of 29 participants were included in this study, of whom 10 (34%) had poor hand function, 17 (59%) had moderate hand function, and 2 (7%) had good hand function. There were no differences in the age and years after stroke among participants with poor hand function and those with moderate (P=.06 and P=.09, respectively) and good (P=.37 and P=.99, respectively) hand function. Regarding the ability of the 10 participants with poor hand function to interact with the 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices, 2 (20%) participants with an ARAT score greater than 0 were able to interact with the devices, whereas the other 8 (80%) who had an ARAT score of 0 could not. Their inability to interact with these devices was clinically examined, and the reason was determined to be a result of either the presence of (1) muscle tone or stiffness or (2) muscle weakness.

Conclusions: Not all stroke survivors with impairments in their hands can make use of currently available rehabilitation technologies. Those with an ARAT score of 0 cannot actively interact with hand rehabilitation devices, as they cannot carry out the hand movement necessary for such interaction. The design of devices for hand rehabilitation should consider the accessibility needs of those with poor hand function.

中风幸存者与手部康复设备的互动:观察研究。
背景:手对于日常生活活动和社会交往至关重要。多达 55% 至 75% 的中风幸存者在中风 3 至 6 个月后上肢功能会受到影响。康复训练可以帮助恢复手部功能,目前已设计出多种康复设备来改善手部功能。然而,对于功能丧失较严重的人来说,使用这些设备的机会受到了影响:在这项研究中,我们旨在观察手部功能较差的中风幸存者与一系列常用手部康复设备的互动情况:方法:参与者在一家科技含量较高的康复健身房进行为期 8 周的康复干预。每周至少两次,每次 2 小时,每次 50-60 分钟。每位参与者都会告知自己的康复目标,并使用行动研究手臂测试(ARAT)来测量手部功能并将其分为较差(0-9 分)、中等(10-56 分)或良好(57 分)。在参与者与三种手部康复设备(GripAble、NeuroBall 和 Semi-Circular Peg Board)互动的过程中,对他们进行了观察。每节课都对设备互动情况进行了观察记录:本研究共纳入 29 名参与者,其中 10 人(34%)手部功能较差,17 人(59%)手部功能中等,2 人(7%)手部功能良好。手部功能差的参与者与手部功能中等(分别为 P=.06 和 P=.09)和手部功能良好(分别为 P=.37 和 P=.99)的参与者在年龄和卒中后年数上没有差异。关于 10 名手部功能较差的参与者与 3 种手部康复设备的互动能力,2 名(20%)ARAT 得分大于 0 的参与者能够与设备互动,而其他 8 名(80%)ARAT 得分为 0 的参与者则不能。经临床检查,他们无法与这些设备互动的原因是:(1)肌肉张力或僵硬或(2)肌肉无力:结论:并非所有手部受损的中风幸存者都能使用现有的康复技术。ARAT评分为0分的患者无法与手部康复设备积极互动,因为他们无法进行互动所需的手部运动。手部康复设备的设计应考虑手部功能不良者的无障碍需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信