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...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Despina Laparidou [verfasserIn] Ffion Curtis [verfasserIn] Joseph Akanuwe [verfasserIn] Khaled Goher [verfasserIn] A. Niroshan Siriwardena [verfasserIn] Ayse Kucukyilmaz [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation - BMC, 2004, 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2021 ; number:1 ; pages:24 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ003007316 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ003007316 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503111907.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RC321-571 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Despina Laparidou |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Motor rehabilitation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Patients | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Carers | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Staff | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Perceptions | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ffion Curtis |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Joseph Akanuwe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Khaled Goher |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a A. Niroshan Siriwardena |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ayse Kucukyilmaz |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |d BMC, 2004 |g 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 |w (DE-627)461907933 |w (DE-600)2164377-5 |x 17430003 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2021 |g number:1 |g pages:24 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2119 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2021 |e 1 |h 24 | ||
| author_variant |
d l dl f c fc j a ja k g kg a n s ans a k ak |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:17430003:2021----::aincrrnsafecpinorbtcimtreaiiainsseairve |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
RC |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Despina Laparidou verfasserin aut Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Ffion Curtis verfasserin aut Joseph Akanuwe verfasserin aut Khaled Goher verfasserin aut A. Niroshan Siriwardena verfasserin aut Ayse Kucukyilmaz verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 1 24 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Despina Laparidou verfasserin aut Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Ffion Curtis verfasserin aut Joseph Akanuwe verfasserin aut Khaled Goher verfasserin aut A. Niroshan Siriwardena verfasserin aut Ayse Kucukyilmaz verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 1 24 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Despina Laparidou verfasserin aut Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Ffion Curtis verfasserin aut Joseph Akanuwe verfasserin aut Khaled Goher verfasserin aut A. Niroshan Siriwardena verfasserin aut Ayse Kucukyilmaz verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 1 24 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Despina Laparidou verfasserin aut Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Ffion Curtis verfasserin aut Joseph Akanuwe verfasserin aut Khaled Goher verfasserin aut A. Niroshan Siriwardena verfasserin aut Ayse Kucukyilmaz verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 1 24 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC321-571 Despina Laparidou verfasserin aut Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Ffion Curtis verfasserin aut Joseph Akanuwe verfasserin aut Khaled Goher verfasserin aut A. Niroshan Siriwardena verfasserin aut Ayse Kucukyilmaz verfasserin aut In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation BMC, 2004 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 (DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 17430003 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 1 24 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 |
| sourceStr |
In Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18(2021), 1, Seite 24 volume:18 year:2021 number:1 pages:24 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Despina Laparidou @@aut@@ Ffion Curtis @@aut@@ Joseph Akanuwe @@aut@@ Khaled Goher @@aut@@ A. Niroshan Siriwardena @@aut@@ Ayse Kucukyilmaz @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
461907933 |
| id |
DOAJ003007316 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ003007316</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503111907.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ003007316</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC321-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Despina Laparidou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Motor rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patients</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Staff</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Perceptions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ffion Curtis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joseph Akanuwe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khaled Goher</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A. Niroshan Siriwardena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ayse Kucukyilmaz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2021), 1, Seite 24</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)461907933</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2164377-5</subfield><subfield code="x">17430003</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">24</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
Despina Laparidou |
| spellingShingle |
Despina Laparidou misc RC321-571 misc Robotics misc Motor rehabilitation misc Patients misc Carers misc Staff misc Perceptions misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| authorStr |
Despina Laparidou |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)461907933 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
RC321-571 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
17430003 |
| topic_title |
RC321-571 Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis Robotics Motor rehabilitation Patients Carers Staff Perceptions |
| topic |
misc RC321-571 misc Robotics misc Motor rehabilitation misc Patients misc Carers misc Staff misc Perceptions misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc RC321-571 misc Robotics misc Motor rehabilitation misc Patients misc Carers misc Staff misc Perceptions misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry |
| topic_browse |
misc RC321-571 misc Robotics misc Motor rehabilitation misc Patients misc Carers misc Staff misc Perceptions misc Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
461907933 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)461907933 (DE-600)2164377-5 |
| title |
Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ003007316 (DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 |
| title_full |
Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| author_sort |
Despina Laparidou |
| journal |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |
| journalStr |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
24 |
| author_browse |
Despina Laparidou Ffion Curtis Joseph Akanuwe Khaled Goher A. Niroshan Siriwardena Ayse Kucukyilmaz |
| container_volume |
18 |
| class |
RC321-571 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Despina Laparidou |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| callnumber |
RC321-571 |
| title_auth |
Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| abstract |
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. |
| abstractGer |
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. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
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. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9 https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Ffion Curtis Joseph Akanuwe Khaled Goher A. Niroshan Siriwardena Ayse Kucukyilmaz |
| author2Str |
Ffion Curtis Joseph Akanuwe Khaled Goher A. Niroshan Siriwardena Ayse Kucukyilmaz |
| ppnlink |
461907933 |
| callnumber-subject |
RC - Internal Medicine |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3 |
| callnumber-a |
RC321-571 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:24:51.710Z |
| _version_ |
1803571997401153536 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ003007316</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503111907.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ003007316</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC321-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Despina Laparidou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Motor rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patients</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Staff</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Perceptions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ffion Curtis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joseph Akanuwe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khaled Goher</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A. Niroshan Siriwardena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ayse Kucukyilmaz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2021), 1, Seite 24</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)461907933</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2164377-5</subfield><subfield code="x">17430003</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e2c1fbdf2592496c822a83495ec290e9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1743-0003</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">24</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3980913 |