ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2025
Exploring Rehabilitation Patients' Perspectives on What Matters for the Adoption of Home-Based Rehabilitation Technology: Q-Methodology Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explaining the Use Behavior of Digital Technologies in Pediatric Rehabilitation: Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of a Cross-Sectional European Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Identifying needs in adult rehabilitation to support the clinical implementation of robotics and allied technologies: an Italian national survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed 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.
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.