Perspectives of users for a future interactive wearable system for upper extremity rehabilitation following stroke: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable sensor technology can facilitate diagnostics and monitoring of people with upper extremity (UE) paresis after stroke. The purpose of this study is to investigate the perspectives of clinicians, people living with stroke, and their caregivers on an interactive wearable system that detects UE movements and provides feedback. METHODS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews relating to the perspectives of a future interactive wearable system including a wearable sensor to capture UE movement and a user interface to provide feedback as the means of data collection. Ten rehabilitation therapists, 9 people with stroke, and 2 caregivers participated in this study. RESULTS: Four themes were identified (1) "Everyone is different" highlighted the need for addressing individual user's rehabilitation goal and personal preference; (2) "The wearable system should identify UE and trunk movements" emphasized that in addition to arm, hand, and finger movements, detecting compensatory trunk movements during UE movements is also of interest; (3) "Both quality and amount of movements are necessary to measure" described the parameters related to how well and how much the user is using their affected UE that participants envisioned the system to monitor; (4) "Functional activities should be practiced by the users" outlined UE movements and activities that are of priority in designing the system. CONCLUSIONS: Narratives from clinicians, people with stroke, and their caregivers offer insight into the design of interactive wearable systems. Future studies examining the experience and acceptability of existing wearable systems from end-users are warranted to guide the adoption of this technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".