ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2024
Professionals' Perspectives of Smart Stationary Bikes in Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stationary bikes are used in numerous rehabilitation settings, with most offering limited functionalities and types of training. Smart technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robotics, bring new possibilities to achieve rehabilitation goals. However, it is important that these technologies meet the needs of users in order to improve their adoption in current practice. Objective: This study aimed to collect professionals' perspectives on the use of smart stationary bikes in rehabilitation. Methods: Twelve health professionals (age: mean 43.4, SD 10.1 years) completed an online questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview regarding their needs and expectations before and after a 30-minute session with a smart bike prototype. Results: A content analysis was performed with inductive coding. Seven main themes emerged: (1) bike functionalities (cycling assistance, asymmetric resistance, and forward and backward cycling), (2) interface between bike and users (simple, user-friendly, personalized, with written reminders during training), (3) feedback to users (user and performance data), (4) training programs (preprogrammed and personalized, and algorithmic programs), (5) user engagement (telerehabilitation, group sessions, music, and automatic suggestion of training), (6) the bike as a physical device (dimensions, comfort, setup, screen, etc), and (7) business model (various pricing strategies, training for professionals, and after-sales service). Conclusions: This study provides an interpretive understanding of professionals' perspectives regarding smart stationary bikes and is the first to identify the expectations of health professionals regarding the development of future bikes in rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.