Deans' stroke musings: Adoption of Stroke Rehabilitation Technologies by the User Community: Qualitative Study

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Adoption of Stroke Rehabilitation Technologies by the User Community: Qualitative Study

Are you that fucking stupid that you don't know the only priority for survivors is 100% recovery? We want results NOT access or awareness.

Adoption of Stroke Rehabilitation Technologies by the User Community: Qualitative Study

¹Centre of Excellence in Rehabilitation Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
²Stroke Rehabilitation Unit, Physiotherapy Department, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
³Education Programmes, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
⁴Interactive and Trustworthy Technologies, Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
*all authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Andrew Kerr, BSc (Physio), MSc, PhD
Centre of Excellence in Rehabilitation Research
Department of Biomedical Engineering
University of Strathclyde
Biomedical Engineering
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow, G1 0QX
United Kingdom
Phone: 44 01415482855
Email: a.kerr [at] strath.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: Using technology in stroke rehabilitation is attractive. Devices such as robots or smartphones can help deliver evidence-based levels of practice intensity and automated feedback without additional labor costs. Currently, however, few technologies have been adopted into everyday rehabilitation.
Objective: This project aimed to identify stakeholder (therapists, patients, and caregivers) priorities for stroke rehabilitation technologies and to generate user-centered solutions for enhancing everyday adoption.
Methods: We invited stakeholders (n=60), comprising stroke survivors (20/60, 33%), therapists (20/60, 33%), caregivers, and technology developers (including researchers; 20/60, 33%), to attend 2 facilitated workshops. Workshop 1 was preceded by a national survey of stroke survivors and therapists (n=177) to generate an initial list of priorities. The subsequent workshop focused on identifying practical solutions to enhance adoption.
Results: A total of 25 priorities were generated from the survey; these were reduced to 10 nonranked priorities through discussion, consensus activities, and voting at Workshop 1: access to technologies, ease of use, awareness of available technologies, technologies focused on function, supports self-management, user training, evidence of effectiveness, value for money, knowledgeable staff, and performance feedback. The second workshop provided recommendations for improving the adoption of technologies in stroke rehabilitation: an annual exhibition of commercially available and developing technologies, an online consumer-rating website of available technologies, and a user network to inspire and test new technologies.
Conclusions: The key outcomes from this series of stakeholder workshops provides a starting point for an integrated approach to promoting greater adoption of technologies in stroke rehabilitation. Bringing technology developers and users together to shape future and evaluate current technologies is critical to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation.