Abstract

BackgroundPartial weight bearing is frequently instructed by physical therapists in patients after lower-limb trauma or surgery. The use of biofeedback devices seems promising to improve the patient’s compliance with weight-bearing instructions. SmartStep and OpenGo-Science are biofeedback devices that provide real-time feedback. For a successful implementation, usability of the devices is a critical aspect and should be tested from a user’s perspective.AimTo describe the usability from the physical therapists’ and a patients’ perspective of Smartstep and OpenGo-Science to provide feedback on partial weight bearing during supervised rehabilitation of patients after lower-limb trauma or surgery.MethodsIn a convergent mixed-methods design, qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Usability was subdivided into user performance, satisfaction and acceptability. Patients prescribed with partial weight bearing and their physical therapists were asked to use SmartStep and OpenGo-Science during supervised rehabilitation. Usability was qualitatively tested by a think-aloud method and a semi-structured interview and quantitatively tested by the System-Usability-Scale (SUS) and closed questions. For the qualitative data thematic content analyses were used.ResultsNine pairs of physical therapists and their patients participated. The mean SUS scores for patients and physical therapists were for SmartStep 70 and 53, and for OpenGo-Science 79 and 81, respectively. Scores were interpreted with the Curved Grading Scale. The qualitative data showed that there were mixed views and perceptions from patients and physical therapists on satisfaction and acceptability.ConclusionThis study gives insight in the usability of two biofeedback devices from the patient’s and physical therapist’s perspective. The overall usability from both perspectives seemed to be acceptable for OpenGo-Science. For SmartStep, overall usability seemed only acceptable from the patient’s perspective.ImplicationThe study findings could help clinicians to decide which biofeedback device is appropriate for their given situation and provide information for future development of biofeedback devices.

Highlights

  • Restrictions of lower-limb weight bearing are frequently instructed in patients after orthopedic trauma or surgery such as lower-limb fractures or osteotomies [1]

  • The mean SUS scores for patients and physical therapists were for SmartStep 70 and 53, and for OpenGo-Science 79 and 81, respectively

  • The overall usability from both perspectives seemed to be acceptable for OpenGo-Science

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Restrictions of lower-limb weight bearing are frequently instructed in patients after orthopedic trauma or surgery such as lower-limb fractures or osteotomies [1]. Technological advances have resulted in the development of several commercially available biofeedback devices that are capable of offering real-time feedback on PWB in dynamic situations [1,5,6,11]. These devices intend to enable PTs to assess, train and monitor WB, and aim to provide patients with feedback during daily activities. Examples of such biofeedback devices are SmartStep and OpenGo Science Both devices are used in supervised clinical settings by PTs and patients and seem promising to improve training and compliance to WB instructions because of providing real-time feedback. Usability of the devices is a critical aspect and should be tested from a user’s perspective

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call