Technology-aided assessments of sensorimotor function: current use, barriers and future directions in the view of different stakeholders

Assessments really do nothing for survivors because after you have been assessed as having this problem there is absolutely nothing your therapist can do that will guarantee your recovery. You'll get guidelines and suggestions but nothing concrete.  All in all this is totally useless for survivors.  The only goal for survivors is 100% recovery and this does nothing to get there.

Technology-aided assessments of sensorimotor function: current use, barriers and future directions in the view of different stakeholders

• Camila Shirota†,
• Sivakumar Balasubramanian† and
• Alejandro Melendez-Calderon†Email authorView ORCID ID profile

†Contributed equally

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation201916:53

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0519-7

©  The Author(s). 2019

• Received: 8 October 2018
• Accepted: 27 March 2019
• Published: 29 April 2019

Abstract

Background

There is growing interest in the use of technology in neurorehabilitation, from robotic to sensor-based devices. These technologies are believed to be excellent tools for quantitative assessment of sensorimotor ability, addressing the shortcomings of traditional clinical assessments. However, clinical adoption of technology-based assessments is very limited. To understand this apparent contradiction, we sought to gather the points-of-view of different stakeholders in the development and use of technology-aided sensorimotor assessments.

Methods

A questionnaire regarding motivators, barriers, and the future of technology-aided assessments was prepared and disseminated online. To promote discussion, we present an initial analysis of the dataset; raw responses are provided to the community as Supplementary Material. Average responses within stakeholder groups were compared across groups. Additional questions about respondent’s demographics and professional practice were used to obtain a view of the current landscape of sensorimotor assessments and interactions between different stakeholders.

Results

One hundred forty respondents from 23 countries completed the survey. Respondents were a mix of Clinicians (27%), Research Engineers (34%), Basic Scientists (15%), Medical Industry professionals (16%), Patients (2%) and Others (6%). Most respondents were experienced in rehabilitation within their professions (67% with > 5 years of experience), and had exposure to technology-aided assessments (97% of respondents). In general, stakeholders agreed on reasons for performing assessments, level of details required, current bottlenecks, and future directions. However, there were disagreements between and within stakeholders in aspects such as frequency of assessments, and important factors hindering adoption of technology-aided assessments, e.g., Clinicians’ top factor was cost, while Research Engineers indicated device-dependent factors and lack of standardization. Overall, lack of time, cost, lack of standardization and poor understanding/lack of interpretability were the major factors hindering the adoption of technology-aided assessments in clinical practice. Reimbursement and standardization of technology-aided assessments were rated as the top two activities to pursue in the coming years to promote the field of technology-aided sensorimotor assessments.

Conclusions

There is an urgent need for standardization in technology-aided assessments. These efforts should be accompanied by quality cross-disciplinary activities, education and alignment of scientific language, to more effectively promote the clinical use of assessment technologies.

Trial registration

NA; see Declarations section.