Rehabilitation technologies perceived positively by patients and facilitated intensive therapy within sessions.
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Adult inpatients undergoing rehabilitation in an Australian inpatient rehabilitation facility, with upper limb impairments requiring neurological or musculoskeletal rehabilitation |
| I — Intervention | Rehabilitation technologies including robot-assisted therapy (InMotion, Fourier ArmMotus, SaeboReJoyce) and Touch Accessible Platform for Interactive Technology (TAPIT) |
| C — Comparator | No formal comparator group; descriptive/observational study of technology use within routine therapy sessions |
| O — Outcomes | Patient perceptions of rehabilitation technologies (qualitative semi-structured interviews, System Usability Scale scores), quantity and intensity of technology-based practice (session duration, active therapy time) |
Bottom Line
This small Australian multimethod study (n=10) provides preliminary evidence that inpatient rehabilitation technologies — including robot-assisted upper limb devices and interactive platforms — are well accepted by patients and can facilitate high proportions of active therapy time within sessions (~83%). System Usability Scale scores were uniformly positive, and qualitative interviews highlighted enjoyability and perceived benefit. However, the study's critical limitations must temper enthusiasm: the single-site, 10-participant design with no comparator group, absent confidence intervals, and potential social desirability bias mean these findings are hypothesis-generating only. The study cannot demonstrate that technology-assisted therapy improves functional outcomes compared to conventional therapy, nor can it establish cost-effectiveness or optimal patient selection criteria. For Australian rehabilitation clinicians and facility managers, this study offers reassurance that patients are unlikely to resist technology integration and that high active therapy ratios are achievable — but investment decisions should be informed by the broader evidence base for specific devices, including randomised trial data on functional outcomes, rather than this study alone.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported; descriptive study design
Effect Size: Mean session duration was 35 minutes, of which 29 minutes (approximately 83%) constituted active therapy time. No comparative effect sizes are reported.
Primary Outcome: Patient perceptions of rehabilitation technologies were predominantly positive; participants reported benefits for recovery, enjoyability, and ease of use. System Usability Scale scores ranged from 65 to 100, with a minimum rating of 'good' for user-friendliness across all devices.
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable; descriptive/exploratory study. Active therapy proportion: ~83% of observed session time (29 of 35 minutes mean). SUS scores: range 65–100 (minimum 'good' threshold, with scores ≥68 considered above average usability by established SUS benchmarks).
Confidence Interval: Not reported
Clinical Application
The technologies studied (InMotion, Fourier ArmMotus, SaeboReJoyce, TAPIT) are commercially available and have been deployed in Australian rehabilitation settings. The finding that patients were comfortable with limited therapist input during technology-assisted sessions has workforce implications, potentially enabling therapists to supervise multiple patients simultaneously or redirect time to higher-complexity tasks. However, capital costs, maintenance requirements, and staff training needs are not addressed in this study. This study is directly relevant to Australian inpatient rehabilitation practice. Australian rehabilitation facilities are increasingly investing in technology-assisted therapy, and the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC) benchmarking framework emphasises therapy intensity as a quality indicator. The RACGP and relevant specialist colleges (AFRM — Australasian Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine) have noted the importance of therapy intensity in neurological rehabilitation. None of the studied devices are currently listed on the Prostheses List or PBS, meaning acquisition costs fall to facilities or patients. The TGA regulates these devices as medical devices; all named devices have established regulatory pathways. This study provides preliminary Australian-specific feasibility and acceptability data to support technology procurement decisions, though the evidence base remains insufficient to inform formal clinical guidelines. Adult inpatients undergoing upper limb rehabilitation in Australian inpatient rehabilitation facilities, particularly those with neurological conditions (stroke, acquired brain injury) or other impairments requiring upper limb retraining. Mean age 62 years in this sample aligns with typical stroke rehabilitation demographics.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australian inpatient rehabilitation facilities are increasingly integrating rehabilitation technologies to support patient recovery. However, little is known about patient perceptions of rehabilitation technologies and the intensity of therapy able to be facilitated. This study aimed to quantify the amount of practice being achieved by patients in an Australian inpatient rehabilitation setting and explore their perceptions of upper limb rehabilitation technologies. METHODS: A multimethod study design was used to investigate the perceptions and use of rehabilitation technologies (i.e. InMotion, Fourier ArmMotus, SaeboReJoyce and Touch Accessible Platform for Interactive Technology) by adult inpatients. Semi-structured interviews and the System Usability Scale were completed. Observations of routine therapy sessions were undertaken to quantify the amount and intensity of technology-based practice. RESULTS: Ten participants were recruited (50% male, mean age 62 years). A total of 15 sessions were observed across all participants using robot-assisted therapy and Touch Accessible Platform for Interactive Technology at an average duration of 35 min/session; of which 29 min was active therapy. Most participants described their experiences with rehabilitation technologies positively, highlighting benefits for recovery, enjoyability and easy usability. Participants rated the technologies highly on the System Usability Scale, with total scores ranging between 65 and 100 for usability, and a minimum rating of 'good' for user-friendliness. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation technologies were well received by adults undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and with application for a range of impairments. The technologies facilitated enjoyment of daily therapy, and participants were comfortable with limited therapist input when using the devices. Additionally, participants were able to engage in highly intensive practice using the technologies.
References
- 1.Flynn, N., Rahmann, A., Luxton, N., Vu, J., & Kuys, S. (2026). Rehabilitation technologies perceived positively by patients and facilitated intensive therapy within sessions. Brain Impairment: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment. https://doi.org/10.1071/IB24124
Related Research
IEEE transactions on cybernetics
Knowledge Distillation and Reinforcement Learning in a Human–Machine Collaboration Delivery System With a Robotic Arm
3 Aug 2026
The Journal of rheumatology
Examining the Role of Wearables in Inflammatory Arthritis Care: A Narrative Literature Review
3 Aug 2026
Science advances
Human-inspired time-series health evaluation with an adaptive multimodal electronic skin
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service