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, Elspeth Froude, Deirdre Cooke, 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, Elspeth Froude, Deirdre Cooke, 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}
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.
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.