Exploring Rehabilitation Patients’ Perspectives on What Matters for the Adoption of Home-Based Rehabilitation Technology: Q-Methodology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rehabilitation technologies can support recovery and rehabilitation outside clinical settings. However, their adoption remains challenging. Factors such as ease of use, perceived benefits, and social influence play a role, but little is known about how rehabilitation patients perceive their relative importance. Objective: This study aimed to systematically explore the viewpoints of rehabilitation patients regarding the adoption of home-based rehabilitation technology. Methods: Between May and September 2024, this study examined the viewpoints of rehabilitation patients with acquired brain injury regarding the adoption of home-based rehabilitation technology using Q-methodology. A purposive sample of 21 participants ranked 34 opinion statements based on perceived importance and explained their choices during follow-up interviews. By-person factor analysis identified common patterns in how participants ranked the statements. These patterns, referred to as factors or viewpoints, were further interpreted using qualitative interview data. Results: Three viewpoints were identified, each highlighting different factors important for adopting home-based rehabilitation technology: (1) technology supporting rapid recovery, (2) technology supporting independence and self-control, and (3) technology as a supporting partner. Participants consistently emphasized the importance of regaining independence, receiving feedback during exercises, simple and easy-to-use designs, and approval from therapists, while positive reports in mainstream media, support from friends, and reducing travel to rehabilitation centers were considered less important. Conclusions: The findings suggest that rehabilitation patients with acquired brain injury prioritize different factors when adopting home-based rehabilitation technology. While some factors are commonly valued, the diversity in patient viewpoints underscores the need for tailored, user-centered approaches in the design and implementation of these technologies. A one-size-fits-all approach would likely be ineffective in meeting their varying needs.
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 | 0.049 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".