ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Exploring Acceptance of a Clinical Workflow Tool in the Swedish Prosthetics and Orthotics Sector: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring Acceptance of a Clinical Workflow Tool in the Swedish Prosthetics and Orthotics Sector: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The global demand for assistive devices, such as prosthetics and orthotics, is increasing. A shortage of trained professionals contributes to suboptimal care. To improve clinical workflows, the Life Lounge Clinical Workflow (LLCW) has been developed. Understanding user acceptance is essential for ensuring its successful implementation. Objective: This study explored prosthetists and orthotists professionals' perceptions and acceptance of LLCW, as well as the perceived benefits and challenges associated with its use. Methods: A postdemonstration mixed methods study was conducted using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology framework, combining Likert-scale summaries with thematic analysis of open-text responses. The study included 18 prosthetists and orthotists professionals working at orthotic and prosthetic clinics across Sweden. After an interactive session about LLCW, feedback was collected via questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Participants rated several acceptance-related constructs positively. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions emerged as the most favorably discussed areas in the qualitative responses. Descriptive ratings showed high mean scores for motivation to use (4.61), management encouragement (4.56), ease of use (4.11), and willingness to use voluntarily (4.11). However, colleagues' perceptions had a lower mean rating (2.72). Participants highlighted centralized data access, reduced administrative tasks, and improved clinical preparation as key benefits. At the same time, concerns were raised regarding data accuracy, questionnaire length, and the need for structured training before implementation. Conclusions: Participants reported generally positive experiences with LLCW, particularly regarding usability and performance. However, successful implementation requires integration into existing clinical workflows and attention to training and patient engagement. Addressing these elements can support broader adoption and contribute to digital transformation in prosthetics and orthotics care.
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.