Stroke survivors' interaction with hand rehabilitation devices : observational study

Wodu, Chioma Obinuchi and Sweeney, Gillian and Slachetka, Milena and Kerr, Andrew (2024) Stroke survivors' interaction with hand rehabilitation devices : observational study. JMIR Biomedical Engineering, 9. e54159. ISSN 2561-3278 (https://doi.org/10.2196/54159)

[thumbnail of Wodu-etal-JMIRBE-2024-Stroke-survivors-interaction-with-hand-rehabilitation-devices]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Wodu-etal-JMIRBE-2024-Stroke-survivors-interaction-with-hand-rehabilitation-devices.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (256kB)| Preview

Abstract

Background: The hand is crucial for carrying out activities of daily living as well as social interaction. Functional use of the upper limb is affected in up to 55% to 75% of stroke survivors 3 to 6 months after stroke. Rehabilitation can help restore function, and several rehabilitation devices have been designed to improve hand function. However, access to these devices is compromised in people with more severe loss of function. Objective: In this study, we aimed to observe stroke survivors with poor hand function interacting with a range of commonly used hand rehabilitation devices. Methods: Participants were engaged in an 8-week rehabilitation intervention at a technology-enriched rehabilitation gym. The participants spent 50-60 minutes of the 2-hour session in the upper limb section at least twice a week. Each participant communicated their rehabilitation goals, and an Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) was used to measure and categorize hand function as poor (scores of 0-9), moderate (scores of 10-56), or good (score of 57). Participants were observed during their interactions with 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices that focused on hand rehabilitation: the GripAble, NeuroBall, and Semi-Circular Peg Board. Observations of device interactions were recorded for each session. Results: A total of 29 participants were included in this study, of whom 10 (34%) had poor hand function, 17 (59%) had moderate hand function, and 2 (7%) had good hand function. There were no differences in the age and years after stroke among participants with poor hand function and those with moderate (P=.06 and P=.09, respectively) and good (P=.37 and P=.99, respectively) hand function. Regarding the ability of the 10 participants with poor hand function to interact with the 3 hand-based rehabilitation devices, 2 (20%) participants with an ARAT score greater than 0 were able to interact with the devices, whereas the other 8 (80%) who had an ARAT score of 0 could not. Their inability to interact with these devices was clinically examined, and the reason was determined to be a result of either the presence of (1) muscle tone or stiffness or (2) muscle weakness. Conclusions: Not all stroke survivors with impairments in their hands can make use of currently available rehabilitation technologies. Those with an ARAT score of 0 cannot actively interact with hand rehabilitation devices, as they cannot carry out the hand movement necessary for such interaction. The design of devices for hand rehabilitation should consider the accessibility needs of those with poor hand function.

ORCID iDs

Wodu, Chioma Obinuchi ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4128-1051, Sweeney, Gillian ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0543-5981, Slachetka, Milena ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1453-0419 and Kerr, Andrew ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7666-9283;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)