Dataset Information

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In recent years, robotic rehabilitation devices have often been used for motor training. However, to date, no systematic reviews of qualitative studies exploring the end-user experiences of robotic devices in motor rehabilitation have been published. The aim of this study was to review end-users' (patients, carers and healthcare professionals) experiences with robotic devices in motor rehabilitation, by conducting a systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies concerning the users' experiences with such robotic devices.

Methods

Qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative element were eligible for inclusion. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2020, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from the included studies and review articles. Data were synthesised thematically following the Thomas and Harden approach. The CASP Qualitative Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies of this review.

Results

The search strategy identified a total of 13,556 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 30 studies were included. All studies were considered of acceptable quality. We developed six analytical themes: logistic barriers; technological challenges; appeal and engagement; supportive interactions and relationships; benefits for physical, psychological, and social function(ing); and expanding and sustaining therapeutic options.

Conclusions

Despite experiencing technological and logistic challenges, participants found robotic devices acceptable, useful and beneficial (physically, psychologically, and socially), as well as fun and interesting. Having supportive relationships with significant others and positive therapeutic relationships with healthcare staff were considered the foundation for successful rehabilitation and recovery.

SUBMITTER: Laparidou D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8710022 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient/carer involvement in palliative care research has been reported as complex, difficult and less advanced compared to other areas of health and social care research. There is seemingly limited evidence on impact and effectiveness. AIM:To examine the evidence regarding patient/carer involvement in palliative care research and identify the facilitators, barriers, impacts and gaps in the evidence base. DESIGN:Qualitative evidence synthesis using an integrative review approach and thematic analysis. DATA SOURCES:Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018. Additional methods included searching websites and ongoing/unpublished studies, author searching and contacting experts. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework. Two quality assessments on methodology and involvement were undertaken. RESULTS:A total of 93 records were included. Eight main themes were identified, mainly concerning facilitators and barriers to effective patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: definitions/roles, values/principles, organisations/culture, training/support, networking/groups, perspectives/diversity, relationships/communication and emotions/impact. Evidence on the impact of involvement was limited, but when carried out effectively, involvement brought positive benefits for all concerned, improving the relevance and quality of research. Evidence gaps were found in non-cancer populations and collaborative/user-led involvement. CONCLUSION:Evidence identified suggests that involvement in palliative care research is challenging, but not dissimilar to that elsewhere. The facilitators and barriers identified relate mainly to the conduct of researchers at an individual level; in particular, there exists a reluctance among professionals to undertake involvement, and myths still perpetuate that patients/carers do not want to be involved. A developed infrastructure, more involvement-friendly organisational cultures and a strengthening of the evidence base would also be beneficial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite increasing evidence regarding the benefit of intensive task-specific practice and aerobic exercise in stroke rehabilitation, implementation remains difficult. The factors influencing implementation have been explored from therapists' perspectives; however, despite an increased emphasis on patient involvement in research, patients' perceptions have not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to investigate factors influencing implementation of higher intensity activity in people with stroke and to compare this with therapists' perspectives. DESIGN:The design was a cross-sectional qualitative study. METHODS:The study used semistructured interviews with people with stroke who were part of a randomized clinical trial, the Determining Optimal post-Stroke Exercise study, which delivered a higher intensity intervention. An interview guide was developed and data analyzed using implementation frameworks. Factors emerging from interviews with people with stroke were compared and contrasted with factors perceived by rehabilitation therapists. RESULTS:Ten people with stroke were interviewed before data saturation was reached. Participants had a positive attitude regarding working hard and were satisfied with the graded exercise test, high intensity intervention, and the feedback-monitoring devices. Therapists and patients had contrasting perceptions about their beliefs regarding intensive exercise and the content of the intervention, with therapists more focused on the methods and patients more focused on the personal interactions stemming from the therapeutic relationship. CONCLUSIONS:People with stroke perceived no barriers regarding the implementation of higher intensity rehabilitation in practice and were positive towards working at more intense levels. Contrastingly, from the therapists' perspective, therapists' beliefs about quality of movement and issues around staffing and resources were perceived to be barriers. In addition, therapists and people with stroke perceived the contents of the intervention differently, highlighting the importance of involving patients and clinicians in the development and evaluation of rehabilitation interventions.

Project description:Objectives: The medical community is in agreement that artificial intelligence (AI) will have a radical impact on patient care in the near future. The purpose of this study is to assess the awareness of AI technologies among health professionals and to investigate their perceptions toward AI applications in medicine. Design: A web-based Google Forms survey was distributed via the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust e-newsletter. Setting: Only staff working at the NHS Foundation Trust received an invitation to complete the online questionnaire. Participants: 98 healthcare professionals out of 7,538 (response rate 1.3%; CI 95%; margin of error 9.64%) completed the survey, including medical doctors, nurses, therapists, managers, and others. Primary outcome: To investigate the prior knowledge of health professionals on the subject of AI as well as their attitudes and worries about its current and future applications. Results: 64% of respondents reported never coming across applications of AI in their work and 87% did not know the difference between machine learning and deep learning, although 50% knew at least one of the two terms. Furthermore, only 5% stated using speech recognition or transcription applications on a daily basis, while 63% never utilize them. 80% of participants believed there may be serious privacy issues associated with the use of AI and 40% considered AI to be potentially even more dangerous than nuclear weapons. However, 79% also believed AI could be useful or extremely useful in their field of work and only 10% were worried AI will replace them at their job. Conclusions: Despite agreeing on the usefulness of AI in the medical field, most health professionals lack a full understanding of the principles of AI and are worried about potential consequences of its widespread use in clinical practice. The cooperation of healthcare workers is crucial for the integration of AI into clinical practice and without it the NHS may miss out on an exceptionally rewarding opportunity. This highlights the need for better education and clear regulatory frameworks.

Project description:IntroductionUrinary catheters are used extensively throughout healthcare for various reasons including management of urinary tract dysfunction. The purpose of this study was to simultaneously explore both catheter user experience and staff perception of catheter services within community urinary catheter care.MethodsA questionnaire was conducted to investigate the views of community nursing staff. During the same time period, patients were interviewed about i) catheter-care standards and adherence to guidelines ii) patients' feelings towards their catheter and iii) potential improvements to catheter practices and design.ResultsSixty-nine staff were surveyed. Although 97% of staff indicated they used local guidelines, in up to 62% of cases findings suggested practices in sending urine samples for culture did not comply with guidelines. Seventy-five percent of staff were satisfied with catheter care, but weaknesses were identified in handover processes, communication between staff and patients, and excessive documentation. Staff results were compared with the findings from interviews of 29 long-term urinary catheter users, demonstrating a higher level of satisfaction with catheter care amongst patients (86%). Patients and staff agreed that generally the impacts of their catheter on personal hygiene, sense of independence, sense of dignity and of patient happiness, were neutral (neither positive nor negative). However, regarding improvements to catheter practices and catheter design; 73% of staff but only 45% of patients suggested improvements in service, while 76% of patients but only 49% of staff suggested improvement in design.ConclusionThe study reveals general satisfaction with community catheter care, but indicates areas of potential improvements regarding communication, documentation and catheter design. When compared to patient responses, staff overall had a less positive view of patients perception of their relationship with their catheter.