Oral Presentation Smart Strokes Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

Stroke rehabilitation clinicians’ perspectives of device and programme requirements for effective upper-limb robotic rehabilitation following stroke. (106883)

Kate Charlesworth 1 , Elisabeth Kumar 2 , Sharon Olsen 1 , Julie Collis 3 , Edgar Rodriguez-Ramirez 4 , Will Browne 5 , Nada Signal 1
  1. Auckland University of Technology, Northcote, Auckland, New Zealand
  2. Mason Clinic Regional Forensic Psychiatry Services, Point Chevalier, Auckland, New Zealand
  3. Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  4. Victoria University of Wellington, Te Aro, Wellington, New Zealand
  5. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, QLD, Australia

Introduction

People with stroke commonly face upper-limb (UL) impairment, impacting performance of daily activities. Limited time and resources often prevent clinicians from delivering adequate rehabilitation for UL recovery. Robotic devices present a potential solution to address this shortfall. However, their adoption in clinical practice is low due to devices not aligning with users’ needs and uncertainty regarding optimal delivery methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore robotic device and programme features required for effective upper-limb robotic rehabilitation following stroke from the perspective of stroke rehabilitation clinicians.

Methods

Occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and rehabilitation assistants practicing in stroke rehabilitation were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interviews explored perspectives on aspects such as optimal implementation of devices, movements facilitated by devices, and suitable environments for their use. Image elicitation depicting robotic device and programme features were utilised during interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using a descriptive content analysis.

Results

Six occupational therapists, three physiotherapists, and two rehabilitation assistants participated. Preliminary data analysis revealed several themes. Clinicians recognised robotic devices as beneficial tools in rehabilitation, offering increased therapy doses across home, inpatient, and community environments. They preferred devices facilitating performance of daily activities for meaningful engagement in rehabilitation. Incorporating features such as gamification and feedback could enhance engagement with devices. Barriers such as cost, device accessibility, and complex setup procedures posed implementation challenges.

Conclusion 

The findings emphasis the importance of incorporating user’s perspectives in the design and implementation of robotic devices for UL stroke rehabilitation. Addressing clinician’s user requirements may support the uptake and use of robotic devices for rehabilitation.

Relevance to clinical practice or patient experience

Stroke rehabilitation clinicians can draw on their experiences to offer insights into integrating rehabilitation robotics into their daily practice, identifying device and programme features that could improve outcomes.