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

Despina Laparidou; Ffion Curtis; Joseph Akanuwe; Khaled Goher; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Ayse Kucukyilmaz

doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3

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

J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Dec 25;18(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3.

Authors

Despina Laparidou¹, Ffion Curtis², Joseph Akanuwe¹, Khaled Goher³, A Niroshan Siriwardena¹, Ayse Kucukyilmaz⁴

Affiliations

¹ Community and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
² Diabetes Research Centre, College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
³ School of Engineering, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincolnshire, Lincoln, LN6 7DQ, UK.
⁴ School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 2DU, UK. ayse.kucukyilmaz@nottingham.ac.uk.

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.

Keywords: Carers; Experiences; Meta-synthesis; Motor rehabilitation; Patients; Perceptions; Robotics; Staff; Systematic review.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Caregivers* / psychology
Health Personnel
Humans
Qualitative Research
Robotics*