Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 20;22(1):523.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07821-w.

A systematic review on the usability of robotic and virtual reality devices in neuromotor rehabilitation: patients' and healthcare professionals' perspective

Francesco Zanatta  1 , Anna Giardini  2 , Antonia Pierobon  3 , Marco D'Addario  1 , Patrizia Steca  1
Affiliations

A systematic review on the usability of robotic and virtual reality devices in neuromotor rehabilitation: patients' and healthcare professionals' perspective

Francesco Zanatta et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: The application of virtual reality (VR) and robotic devices in neuromotor rehabilitation has provided promising evidence in terms of efficacy, so far. Usability evaluations of these technologies have been conducted extensively, but no overviews on this topic have been reported yet.

Methods: A systematic review of the studies on patients' and healthcare professionals' perspective through searching of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsychINFO (2000 to 2021) was conducted. Descriptive data regarding the study design, participants, technological devices, interventions, and quantitative and qualitative usability evaluations were extracted and meta-synthetized.

Results: Sixty-eight studies were included. VR devices were perceived as having good usability and as a tool promoting patients' engagement and motivation during the treatment, as well as providing strong potential for customized rehabilitation sessions. By contrast, they suffered from the effect of learnability and were judged as potentially requiring more mental effort. Robotics implementation received positive feedback along with high satisfaction and perceived safety throughout the treatment. Robot-assisted rehabilitation was considered useful as it supported increased treatment intensity and contributed to improved patients' physical independence and psychosocial well-being. Technical and design-related issues may limit the applicability making the treatment difficult and physically straining. Moreover, cognitive and communication deficits were remarked as potential barriers.

Conclusions: Overall, VR and robotic devices have been perceived usable so far, reflecting good acceptance in neuromotor rehabilitation programs. The limitations raised by the participants should be considered to further improve devices applicability and maximise technological rehabilitation effectiveness.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration ref. CRD42021224141 .

Keywords: Rehabilitation; Robotics; Systematic Review; Usability; Virtual Reality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of studies through the review
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quantitative usability measures of the included studies. SUS, System Usability Scale; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; SFQ, Short Feedback Questionnaire; TAM, Technology Acceptance Model Questionnaire; USEQ, User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire; SEQ, Suitability Evaluation Questionnaire; QUEST, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0; USE, Usefulness, Satisfaction, Ease of Use Questionnaire; UTA, Users’ Technology Acceptance Questionnaire
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Overall virtual reality and robotic devices strengths and limitations according to patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Yakub F, Md Khudzari AZ, Mori Y. Recent trends for practical rehabilitation robotics, current challenges and the future. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37:9–21. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tieri G, Morone G, Paolucci S, Iosa M. Virtual reality in cognitive and motor rehabilitation: facts, fiction and fallacies. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15:107–117. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2018.1425613. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Iandolo R, Marini F, Semprini M, Laffranchi M, Mugnosso M, Cherif A, et al. Perspectives and Challenges in Robotic Neurorehabilitation. Appl Sci. 2019;9:3183. doi: 10.3390/app9153183. - DOI
    1. Giansanti D. The Rehabilitation and the Robotics: Are They Going Together Well? Healthcare (Basel) 2020;9:26. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9010026. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sawicki GS, Beck ON, Kang I, Young AJ. The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17:25. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00663-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources