4.6 Review

Feedback Design in Targeted Exercise Digital Biofeedback Systems for Home Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20010181

Keywords

biofeedback; feedback; wearable sensors; rehabilitation; exercise; physiotherapy

Funding

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under a Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [722012]
  2. V Plan Propio de Investigacion de la Universidad de Sevilla, Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Digital biofeedback systems (DBSs) are used in physical rehabilitation to improve outcomes by engaging and educating patients and have the potential to support patients while doing targeted exercises during home rehabilitation. The components of feedback (mode, content, frequency and timing) can influence motor learning and engagement in various ways. The feedback design used in DBSs for targeted exercise home rehabilitation, as well as the evidence underpinning the feedback and how it is evaluated, is not clearly known. To explore these concepts, we conducted a scoping review where an electronic search of PUBMED, PEDro and ACM digital libraries was conducted from January 2000 to July 2019. The main inclusion criteria included DBSs for targeted exercises, in a home rehabilitation setting, which have been tested on a clinical population. Nineteen papers were reviewed, detailing thirteen different DBSs. Feedback was mainly visual, concurrent and descriptive, frequently providing knowledge of results. Three systems provided clear rationale for the use of feedback. Four studies conducted specific evaluations of the feedback, and seven studies evaluated feedback in a less detailed or indirect manner. Future studies should describe in detail the feedback design in DBSs and consider a robust evaluation of the feedback element of the intervention to determine its efficacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available