Implementation and Evaluation of a Gait Training Assistant for the Use of Crutches: Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures on the lower extremities often require weight-bearing on crutches as part of the rehabilitation process. Orthopedic elective procedures enable patients to learn the correct use of crutches in a controlled preoperative setting. Digital assistance systems can safely circumvent a shortage of skilled staff and any contact restrictions that may be necessary. OBJECTIVE: The usability of a newly developed gait training assistant (GTA) for the use of crutches will be evaluated. An intervention group trained to use crutches by the digital trainer will be compared with a control group trained to use crutches conventionally by a physiotherapist. METHODS: As part of the development and implementation of a novel GTA, 14 patients learned to walk with crutches by completing specific exercises while receiving live feedback. Their movements were detected by a depth sensor and evaluated in real time. Specific parameters (step length, synchronous movement, crutch angle, and crutch distance to the feet) were compared with a control group (n=14) trained to use crutches by physiotherapists. The intervention group was also assessed by a physiotherapist. At the end of the study, the patients completed questionnaires to evaluate the usability of the system (Brooke's System Usability Scale score) and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: All patients trained by the novel GTA were able to use crutches correctly. The intervention group showed significantly better values for crutch angle (mean -6.3°, SD 3.5° vs mean -12.4°, SD 4.5°; P<.001) and crutch position (mean 3.3, SD 5.1 cm vs mean -8.5, SD 4.9 cm; P=.02). Both groups reported that they felt confident in the use of crutches, were able to follow the instructions, and enjoyed the training. Even though the majority (12/14, 86%) preferred physical therapy over a purely digital approach, most participants enjoyed using the system (13/14, 93%) and were interested in trying out other digital assistants (11/14, 79%). The usability of the GTA was rated above average by the majority (9/14, 64%) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The newly designed GTA is a safe method of teaching the use of crutches and is statistically superior to training by a physiotherapist. Even if patients prefer interaction with a physiotherapist over a purely digital approach, digital devices provide a safe and motivating opportunity to learn the essential locomotor skills for rehabilitation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".