Acceptability of Rehabilitation Exoskeleton from the Perspective of Users with Spinal Cord Injury and Healthcare Professionals: a Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The objective was to document the acceptability of rehabilitation exoskeletons from the perspective of users with spinal cord injury (SCI) and healthcare professionals (HP). Methods This mixed-methods systematic review considered quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies that included adults with SCI using an exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation, as well as HP working within rehabilitation settings with individuals with SCI who used an exoskeleton. A convergent integrated approach per the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) was used. Results A total of 22 studies were included. Overall, individuals with SCI and HP expressed a favorable level of acceptability. Participants reported a positive affective attitude, an overall satisfaction, and several psychological benefits. Few burdens, ethical issues and opportunity costs have also been reported in the studies. Maintaining realistic expectations towards exoskeleton use and ensuring the appropriate selection of users is important for intervention coherence. In general, there was a positive perception regarding effectiveness and self-efficacy. Nevertheless, only a limited number of studies focused primarily on measuring acceptability, revealing an important gap in the literature. Conclusions The acceptability of exoskeletons among people with SCI and HP tends to be positive, which is promising for the sustainable implementation of this technology. However, there is still a lack of knowledge about the acceptability of HP, with only two studies conducted among this population. It is crucial to persevere in documenting the acceptability of exoskeletons, notably by standardizing comprehensive approaches for measuring acceptability, and to continue refining 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 | 0.036 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".