Wheelchair-mounted robotic arms: a survey of occupational therapists’ practices and perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Despite the benefits of wheelchair-mounted robotic arms (WMRAs), occupational therapists are not yet widely involved in the recommendation or implementation of these assistive devices. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the current practices and perspectives of occupational therapists who had and had not recommended a WMRA on the recommendation, training, and implementation of WMRAs.Methods This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. An online survey was sent to Canadian, European, and American occupational therapists who had or had not worked with WMRAs. Respondents were asked close-ended questions about their experience, role, barriers, motivations, and future needs regarding WMRAs. We compared results between respondents who had and had not recommended WMRAs using descriptive statistics.Results Ninety-three North American and European occupational therapists completed the survey. Of those, 29 (31.2%) had recommended a WMRA, mostly the JACO robotic arm (n = 26, 89.7%) in rehabilitation centres (n = 18, 62.1%). Their perspectives on their role and barriers related to WMRAs were similar to those who had never recommended a WMRA. All respondents recognised the relevance of occupational therapists’ contribution, and most reported interest in WMRAs (n = 76, 81.7%). However, many barriers emerged, mainly related to limited funding (n = 49, 76.6%), lack of training and knowledge (n = 38, 59.4%), and resource constraints (n = 37, 54.4%). Future needs identified matched these barriers.Conclusion This survey provides novel insight into occupational therapists’ perspectives on WMRAs. It highlights that health professionals need to have easier access to funding, formal training, and resources to support their involvement with WMRAs.Implications for rehabilitationMost occupational therapists are interested in working with WMRAs, considering the potential of these devices to support individuals with upper extremity impairments in their daily activities. They also recognise their unique contribution to the assessment, recommendation, and implementation process among multidisciplinary teams.WMRA recommendation is relevant in various clinical settings and with a wide range of client populations. Nevertheless, it appears that occupational therapists working with adults, in rehabilitation centres or specialised clinics, may have more opportunities to get involved in this process and to attend formal training on this technology, as compared to other settings.Many barriers remain, impeding occupational therapists’ role in the recommendation and implementation of WMRAs. Addressing these barriers may increase the number of devices that are successfully adopted and utilised by individuals with upper extremity impairments. In particular, future research and health policies should focus on access to sufficient funding, formal training, and resources for occupational therapists relative to their role in recommending and implementing WMRAs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».