4.2 Article

Appraisals of robotic locomotor exoskeletons for gait: focus group insights from potential users with spinal cord injuries

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1745910

Keywords

Exoskeleton device; spinal cord injury; outcome; rehabilitation; focus groups; assistive technology

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Defense's Congressionally Directed Medical Rehabilitation Program [W81XWH-17-1-0157]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe appraisals of robotic exoskeletons for locomotion by potential users with spinal cord injuries, their perceptions of device benefits and limitations, and recommendations for manufacturers and therapists regarding device use. Materials and methods: We conducted focus groups at three regional rehabilitation hospitals and used thematic analysis to define themes. Results: Across four focus groups, 35 adults participated; they were predominantly middle-aged, male, and diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, well educated, and not working. Participants had been living with SCI an average of two decades. Most participants were aware of exoskeletons. Some were enthusiastic about the usability of the devices while others were more circumspect. They had many questions about device affordability and usability, and were discerning in their appraisal of benefits and suitability to their particular circumstances. They reflected on device cost, the need for caregiver assistance, use of hands, and environmental considerations. They weighed the functional benefits relative to the cost of preferred activities. Their recommendations focused on cost, battery life, and independent use. Conclusions: Potential users' appraisals of mobility technology reflect a nuanced appreciation of device costs; functional, social, and psychological benefits; and limitations. Results provide guidance to therapists and manufacturers regarding device use.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available