在中风幸存者的常规临床实践中使用机器人上肢治疗:来自澳大利亚治疗师的见解

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Nicholas Flynn, Elspeth Froude, Deirdre Cooke, Suzanne Kuys
{"title":"在中风幸存者的常规临床实践中使用机器人上肢治疗:来自澳大利亚治疗师的见解","authors":"Nicholas Flynn,&nbsp;Elspeth Froude,&nbsp;Deirdre Cooke,&nbsp;Suzanne Kuys","doi":"10.1111/1440-1630.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>There is a limited understanding of therapist acceptance and use of robot-assisted upper limb therapy (RT-ULT) in routine practice. The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influence Australian therapist acceptance and use of RT-ULT.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Two discipline-specific focus groups were conducted involving occupational therapists (<i>n</i> = 5) and physiotherapists (<i>n</i> = 4) who had used RT-ULT. Focus group questions were developed, and transcriptions analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Additionally, participants scored the overall usability of the RT-ULT device with the System Usability Scale (SUS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\n \n <p>There was no direct involvement from consumers or community in this study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Nine of the 14 domains of the TDF were covered in depth by participants during the focus groups: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, knowledge, skills, decision-making, reinforcement, social influences, social/professional role and identity (single domain), and beliefs about capabilities. Physiotherapists recorded higher scores of the device on the SUS than the occupational therapists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both disciplines were accepting of RT-ULT, but it was physiotherapists who predominantly used RT-ULT in part due to the device being located in the physiotherapy rehabilitation gym. Other factors facilitating RT-ULT acceptance in practice included (1) increase in repetitive, intensive independent practice for stroke survivors, (2) ease of use, (3) strong patient acceptance, and (4) implementation process being clinician-led. Functional-based UL practice took priority over RT-ULT once stroke survivors demonstrated sufficient active movement and RT-ULT was not used in isolation but part of a combination of UL interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY</h3>\n \n <p>There is a little known about what therapists think about using robot-assisted upper limb therapy in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to explore Australian therapist perceptions of the use of robotics.</p>\n \n <p>Focus groups were conducted separately with five occupational therapists and four physiotherapists who had used robotics at their rehabilitation facility. In addition to the focus groups, each therapist scored the user-friendliness of the robotic device by completing a short survey.</p>\n \n <p>Both occupational therapists and physiotherapists believed the robotics was a beneficial addition to the rehabilitation facility. Physiotherapists used the device more than the occupational therapists with the device being located in the physiotherapy area of the rehabilitation facility. Therapists explained that robotics increased the amount of practice stroke survivors could do, was easy to use, and was motivating for stroke survivors. However, once stroke survivors had gained enough arm movement, the focus moved to practicing actual daily tasks rather than robotics. Also, robotics was not the only form of upper limb therapy offered to stroke survivors with multiple upper limb treatments used to aid their recovery.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55418,"journal":{"name":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","volume":"72 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of robotic upper limb therapy in routine clinical practice for stroke survivors: Insights from Australian therapists\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Flynn,&nbsp;Elspeth Froude,&nbsp;Deirdre Cooke,&nbsp;Suzanne Kuys\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1440-1630.70010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>There is a limited understanding of therapist acceptance and use of robot-assisted upper limb therapy (RT-ULT) in routine practice. The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influence Australian therapist acceptance and use of RT-ULT.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Two discipline-specific focus groups were conducted involving occupational therapists (<i>n</i> = 5) and physiotherapists (<i>n</i> = 4) who had used RT-ULT. Focus group questions were developed, and transcriptions analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Additionally, participants scored the overall usability of the RT-ULT device with the System Usability Scale (SUS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was no direct involvement from consumers or community in this study.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>Nine of the 14 domains of the TDF were covered in depth by participants during the focus groups: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, knowledge, skills, decision-making, reinforcement, social influences, social/professional role and identity (single domain), and beliefs about capabilities. Physiotherapists recorded higher scores of the device on the SUS than the occupational therapists.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both disciplines were accepting of RT-ULT, but it was physiotherapists who predominantly used RT-ULT in part due to the device being located in the physiotherapy rehabilitation gym. Other factors facilitating RT-ULT acceptance in practice included (1) increase in repetitive, intensive independent practice for stroke survivors, (2) ease of use, (3) strong patient acceptance, and (4) implementation process being clinician-led. Functional-based UL practice took priority over RT-ULT once stroke survivors demonstrated sufficient active movement and RT-ULT was not used in isolation but part of a combination of UL interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY</h3>\\n \\n <p>There is a little known about what therapists think about using robot-assisted upper limb therapy in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to explore Australian therapist perceptions of the use of robotics.</p>\\n \\n <p>Focus groups were conducted separately with five occupational therapists and four physiotherapists who had used robotics at their rehabilitation facility. In addition to the focus groups, each therapist scored the user-friendliness of the robotic device by completing a short survey.</p>\\n \\n <p>Both occupational therapists and physiotherapists believed the robotics was a beneficial addition to the rehabilitation facility. Physiotherapists used the device more than the occupational therapists with the device being located in the physiotherapy area of the rehabilitation facility. Therapists explained that robotics increased the amount of practice stroke survivors could do, was easy to use, and was motivating for stroke survivors. However, once stroke survivors had gained enough arm movement, the focus moved to practicing actual daily tasks rather than robotics. Also, robotics was not the only form of upper limb therapy offered to stroke survivors with multiple upper limb treatments used to aid their recovery.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal\",\"volume\":\"72 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.70010\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.70010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.70010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在常规实践中,对治疗师接受和使用机器人辅助上肢治疗(RT-ULT)的理解有限。本研究的目的是探讨影响澳大利亚治疗师接受和使用RT-ULT的因素。方法对使用过RT-ULT的职业治疗师(n = 5)和物理治疗师(n = 4)进行两个学科的焦点小组研究。开发焦点小组问题,并使用理论领域框架(TDF)分析转录。此外,参与者用系统可用性量表(SUS)对RT-ULT设备的总体可用性进行评分。消费者和社区的参与本研究中没有消费者或社区的直接参与。在焦点小组中,参与者对14个领域中的9个领域进行了深入探讨:环境背景和资源、关于后果的信念、知识、技能、决策、强化、社会影响、社会/职业角色和身份(单一领域)以及关于能力的信念。物理治疗师在SUS上记录的设备得分高于职业治疗师。结论:两个学科都接受RT-ULT,但主要是物理治疗师使用RT-ULT,部分原因是该设备位于物理治疗康复健身房。促进RT-ULT在实践中接受的其他因素包括:(1)卒中幸存者重复,密集的独立练习增加,(2)易用性,(3)患者接受度高,(4)实施过程由临床医生主导。一旦中风幸存者表现出足够的积极运动,基于功能的UL实践优先于RT-ULT, RT-ULT不是单独使用,而是UL干预组合的一部分。关于治疗师在日常实践中使用机器人辅助上肢治疗的想法,我们知之甚少。这项研究的目的是探索澳大利亚治疗师对机器人使用的看法。焦点小组分别由五名职业治疗师和四名物理治疗师进行,他们在康复设施中使用过机器人。除了焦点小组之外,每位治疗师还通过完成一份简短的调查来对机器人设备的用户友好性进行评分。职业治疗师和物理治疗师都认为机器人是康复设施的有益补充。物理治疗师比职业治疗师更多地使用该装置,因为该装置位于康复设施的物理治疗区域。治疗师解释说,机器人增加了中风幸存者可以做的练习量,易于使用,并且对中风幸存者有激励作用。然而,一旦中风幸存者获得了足够的手臂活动,重点就转移到实际的日常任务上,而不是机器人。此外,机器人并不是为中风幸存者提供上肢治疗的唯一形式,他们需要多种上肢治疗来帮助他们康复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The use of robotic upper limb therapy in routine clinical practice for stroke survivors: Insights from Australian therapists

Introduction

There is a limited understanding of therapist acceptance and use of robot-assisted upper limb therapy (RT-ULT) in routine practice. The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influence Australian therapist acceptance and use of RT-ULT.

Methods

Two discipline-specific focus groups were conducted involving occupational therapists (n = 5) and physiotherapists (n = 4) who had used RT-ULT. Focus group questions were developed, and transcriptions analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Additionally, participants scored the overall usability of the RT-ULT device with the System Usability Scale (SUS).

Consumer and Community Involvement

There was no direct involvement from consumers or community in this study.

Findings

Nine of the 14 domains of the TDF were covered in depth by participants during the focus groups: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, knowledge, skills, decision-making, reinforcement, social influences, social/professional role and identity (single domain), and beliefs about capabilities. Physiotherapists recorded higher scores of the device on the SUS than the occupational therapists.

Conclusion

Both disciplines were accepting of RT-ULT, but it was physiotherapists who predominantly used RT-ULT in part due to the device being located in the physiotherapy rehabilitation gym. Other factors facilitating RT-ULT acceptance in practice included (1) increase in repetitive, intensive independent practice for stroke survivors, (2) ease of use, (3) strong patient acceptance, and (4) implementation process being clinician-led. Functional-based UL practice took priority over RT-ULT once stroke survivors demonstrated sufficient active movement and RT-ULT was not used in isolation but part of a combination of UL interventions.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

There is a little known about what therapists think about using robot-assisted upper limb therapy in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to explore Australian therapist perceptions of the use of robotics.

Focus groups were conducted separately with five occupational therapists and four physiotherapists who had used robotics at their rehabilitation facility. In addition to the focus groups, each therapist scored the user-friendliness of the robotic device by completing a short survey.

Both occupational therapists and physiotherapists believed the robotics was a beneficial addition to the rehabilitation facility. Physiotherapists used the device more than the occupational therapists with the device being located in the physiotherapy area of the rehabilitation facility. Therapists explained that robotics increased the amount of practice stroke survivors could do, was easy to use, and was motivating for stroke survivors. However, once stroke survivors had gained enough arm movement, the focus moved to practicing actual daily tasks rather than robotics. Also, robotics was not the only form of upper limb therapy offered to stroke survivors with multiple upper limb treatments used to aid their recovery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is a leading international peer reviewed publication presenting influential, high quality innovative scholarship and research relevant to occupational therapy. The aim of the journal is to be a leader in the dissemination of scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally. The journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical papers, and reviews. Preference will be given to manuscripts that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge. AOTJ does not publish protocols for any study design The journal will consider multidisciplinary or interprofessional studies that include occupational therapy, occupational therapists or occupational therapy students, so long as ‘key points’ highlight the specific implications for occupational therapy, occupational therapists and/or occupational therapy students and/or consumers.
×
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