SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Towards the Identification of Patients' Needs for Promoting Robotics and Allied Digital Technologies in Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.

Healthcare (Basel) · 2025-04-04

DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13070828PMID: 40218126

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background/Objectives: Robotic rehabilitation holds great potential for improving patient outcomes, but the integration of these technologies into clinical practice is hindered by a lack of comprehensive tools for assessing patients' needs. This systematic review aimed to identify gaps in the current literature, with a focus on methodologies and tools for evaluating such needs, particularly those based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Methods: A systematic review of qualitative studies published between 2021 and 2023 was conducted, updating a previous (2020) review. Studies were identified through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using inclusion criteria focused on qualitative methods capturing patients' experiences with robotic and technological rehabilitation devices. Results: The review analyzed 19 new studies and 20 from the prior review, revealing a reliance on semi-structured interviews targeting small, heterogeneous populations. No studies employed standardized ICF-based tools, and gaps were noted in the exploration of conditions such as Parkinson's disease, frailty, or conditions that allowed for multi-device experiences. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the necessity for tailored surveys grounded in the ICF framework to completely evaluate the needs of patients suffering from sensory, motor, and/or cognitive disorders caused by different health conditions. This work lays the foundation for more inclusive, effective, and patient-centered robotic rehabilitation strategies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.