Understanding the Sociocultural Challenges and Opportunities for Affordable Wearables to Support Poststroke Upper-Limb Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: People who survive a stroke in many cases require upper-limb rehabilitation (ULR), which plays a vital role in stroke recovery practices. However, rehabilitation services in the Global South are often not affordable or easily accessible. For example, in Bangladesh, the access to and use of rehabilitation services is limited and influenced by cultural factors and patients' everyday lives. In addition, while wearable devices have been used to enhance ULR exercises to support self-directed home-based rehabilitation, this has primarily been applied in developed regions and is not common in many Global South countries due to potential costs and limited access to technology. Objective: Our goal was to better understand physiotherapists', patients', and caregivers' experiences of rehabilitation in Bangladesh, existing rehabilitation practices, and how they differ from the rehabilitation approach in the United Kingdom. Understanding these differences and experiences would help to identify opportunities and requirements for developing affordable wearable devices that could support ULR in home settings. Methods: We conducted an exploratory study with 14 participants representing key stakeholder groups. We interviewed physiotherapists and patients in Bangladesh to understand their approaches, rehabilitation experiences and challenges, and technology use in this context. We also interviewed UK physiotherapists to explore the similarities and differences between the 2 countries and identify specific contextual and design requirements for low-cost wearables for ULR. Overall, we remotely interviewed 8 physiotherapists (4 in the United Kingdom, 4 in Bangladesh), 3 ULR patients in Bangladesh, and 3 caregivers in Bangladesh. Participants were recruited through formal communications and personal contacts. Each interview was conducted via videoconference, except for 2 interviews, and audio was recorded with consent. A total of 10 hours of discussions were transcribed. The results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We identified several sociocultural factors that affect ULR and should be taken into account when developing technologies for the home: the important role of family, who may influence the treatment based on social and cultural perceptions; the impact of gender norms and their influence on attitudes toward rehabilitation and physiotherapists; and differences in approach to rehabilitation between the United Kingdom and Bangladesh, with Bangladeshi physiotherapists focusing on individual movements that are necessary to build strength in the affected parts and their British counterparts favoring a more holistic approach. We propose practical considerations and design recommendations for developing ULR devices for low-resource settings. Conclusions: Our work shows that while it is possible to build a low-cost wearable device, the difficulty lies in addressing sociotechnical challenges. When developing new health technologies, it is imperative to not only understand how well they could fit into patients', caregivers', and physiotherapists' everyday lives, but also how they may influence any potential tensions concerning culture, religion, and the characteristics of the local health care system.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".