Cited by 22Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Therapists Use Visualizations of Upper Limb Movement Information From Stroke Patients: A Qualitative Study With Simulated Information

Open access
Ploderer, Bernd, Fong, Justin, Klaic, Marlena, Nair, Siddharth, Vetere, Frank, Cofré Lizama, L. Eduardo, Galea, Mary Pauline·2016·JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, with upper limb deficits affecting an estimated 30% to 60% of survivors. The effectiveness of upper limb rehabilitation relies on numerous factors, particularly patient compliance to home programs and exercises set by therapists. However, therapists lack objective information about their patients' adherence to rehabilitation exercises as well as other uses of the affected arm and hand in everyday life outside the clinic. We developed a system that consists of wearable sensor technology to monitor a patient's arm movement and a Web-based dashboard to visualize this information for therapists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate how therapists use upper limb movement information visualized on a dashboard to support the rehabilitation process. METHODS: An interactive dashboard prototype with simulated movement information was created and evaluated through a user-centered design process with therapists (N=8) at a rehabilitation clinic. Data were collected through observations of therapists interacting with an interactive dashboard prototype, think-aloud data, and interviews. Data were analyzed qualitatively through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Therapists use visualizations of upper limb information in the following ways: (1) to obtain objective data of patients' activity levels, exercise, and neglect outside the clinic, (2) to engage patients in the rehabilitation process through education, motivation, and discussion of experiences with activities of daily living, and (3) to engage with other clinicians and researchers based on objective data. A major limitation is the lack of contextual data, which is needed by therapists to discern how movement data visualized on the dashboard relate to activities of daily living. CONCLUSIONS: Upper limb information captured through wearable devices provides novel insights for therapists and helps to engage patients and other clinicians in therapy. Consideration needs to be given to the collection and visualization of contextual information to provide meaningful insights into patient engagement in activities of daily living. These findings open the door for further work to develop a fully functioning system and to trial it with patients and clinicians during therapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/rehab.6182

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing stroke recovery monitoring systems were designed to be used by healthcare providers or caregivers, not by both healthcare providers and patients for communication during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

    “Furthermore, these systems were designed to be used by healthcare providers [46, 47] or caregivers [28] for monitoring patient's recovery progress. They were not developed to be used by healthcare providers and patients for communication during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.”

    From A Data Visualization Tool for Patients and Healthcare Providers to Communicate during Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Methods (Dashboard Design Process; page unavailable) support the provider-monitoring aspect, but say the dashboard was designed to support therapists in consultations with patients. The Results (Theme 2; page unavailable) explicitly describe therapists and patients using it together to discuss rehabilitation data, contrary to the claim that it was not developed for such communication. The study did not test use during inpatient rehabilitation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several technological and visualization tools were developed to monitor stroke recovery progress, particularly monitoring the patient's upper limb movement during stroke recovery.

    “Several technological and visualization tools were developed to monitor stroke recovery progress, particularly monitoring the patient's upper limb movement during stroke recovery [28, 46, 47].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000152 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD · DOI
  3. Nakayama, H, 1994, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 75, 394, 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9 · DOI
  4. Sveen, U, 2004, Clin Rehabil, 18, 267, 10.1191/0269215504cr719oa · DOI
  5. 10.1186/1743-0003-11-111 · DOI
  6. 10.3109/09638288.2010.481027 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2 · DOI
  8. 10.1161/01.STR.0000185928.90848.2e · DOI
  9. 10.1310/tsr1803-277 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/2064942.2064948 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/JBHI.2014.2329841 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944522 · DOI
  13. 10.2196/rehab.4102 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347388 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650397 · DOI
  16. 10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2014.255256 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.06.013 · DOI
  18. Few, S, 2013, Information Dashboard Design: Displaying Data for At-A-Glance Monitoring
  19. 10.1145/2901790.2901799 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Preece, J, 2015, Interaction Design: Beyond Human - Computer Interaction
  21. Buxton, B, 2007, Sketching User Experience: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design
  22. 10.1145/2702123.2702401 · DOI
  23. 10.1109/MCG.2015.51 · DOI
  24. Lenze, EJ, 2004, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85, 1599, 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.03.027 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/07370024.2015.1073592 · DOI
  26. 10.2196/humanfactors.4129 · DOI
  27. Kaplan, B, 1995, Artif Intell Med, 7, 439, 10.1016/0933-3657(95)00014-W · DOI
  28. 10.5014/ajot.56.6.609 · DOI
  29. 10.1109/JBHI.2014.2324293 · DOI
  30. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118642 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ploderer, B., Fong, J., Klaic, M., Nair, S., Vetere, F., Cofré Lizama, L. E., & Galea, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Ploderer, Bernd
Venue
JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
Published
2016-10-05
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e9
ISSN
2369-2529 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2528440381
Cited by
22
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Microsoft Research
  • University of Melbourne
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
stroke, upper limb rehabilitation, wearable sensors, motion monitoring, web dashboard, patient engagement, activities of daily living, home exercise adherence, patient motivation, contextual information

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review