Background. Technology-enabled upper limb (UL) rehabilitation improves therapy intensity and impairment outcomes, however clinical usage remains low and evidence for functional outcomes is limited. While benefits of single-mode technologies have been demonstrated, a combination of technology modes or “hybrid” approach is an emerging option with shoulder to fingertip capability. Investigation of this approach within a hospital setting is warranted to inform occupational therapy practice with neurological patients. Purpose. This study examines feasibility of hybrid technology-enabled UL rehabilitation for in-patients with neurological impairments. Method and Analyses. A Phase II feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) will compare usual care versus hybrid technology intervention using three technology modes (robotics, virtual reality, sensor-based therapy) plus usual care. Pre-post outcomes for UL impairment, activity, participation and self-reported function will be analyzed using 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA. Effect sizes will inform a power analysis for a full-scale RCT. Field observations and participant surveys will capture feasibility factors. It is anticipated hybrid technology for UL neurorehabilitation will be feasible in a hospital setting and show preliminary effectiveness for improving UL use in daily activities. Ethics and Dissemination. Ethics granted from RBWH Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2020/QRBW/67076) and The University of Queensland (2021/HE002211).
AshfordS.Turner-StokesL.SiegertR.SladeM. (2013). Initial psychometric evaluation of the arm activity measure (ArmA): A measure of activity in the hemiparetic arm. Clinical Rehabilitation, 27(8), 728–740.https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215512474942
2.
BertaniR.MelegariC.De ColaM.BramantiA.BramantiP.CalabroR. (2017). Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurological Sciences, 38(9), 1561–1569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2995-5
3.
BowenD.KreuterM.SpringB.Cofta-WoerpelL.LinnanL.WeinerD.BakkenS.KaplanC.SquiersL.FabrizioC.FernandezM. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 36(5), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
4.
BoydH.McKernonS.MullinB.OldA. (2012). Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. New Zealand Medical Journal, 125(1356), 76–87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22854362/
5.
CallawayL.WinklerD.TippettA.HerdN.MiglioriniC.WillerB. (2016). The community integration questionnaire-revised: Australian normative data and measurement of electronic social networking. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 63(3), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12284
6.
CroarkinE.DanoffJ.BarnesC. (2004). Evidence-based rating of upper extremity motor function tests used for people following stroke. Physical Therapy, 84(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/84.1.62
7.
DanielS.TriggC.ParnellP.StentonC.TaylorM. (2018). The implementation of a high intensity rehabilitation programme augmented by robotics and virtual reality. International Journal of Stroke, 13(3), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018801108
8.
DixitS.TedlaJ. (2019). Effectiveness of robotics in improving upper extremity functions among people with neurological dysfunction: A systematic review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 129(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207454.2018.1536051
9.
DuretC.MazzoleniS. (2017). Upper limb robotics applied to neurorehabilitation: An overview of clinical practice. Neuro Rehabilitation, 41(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-171452
10.
FengY.KohlmanT.JanssenM.BuchholzI. (2021). Psychometric properties of the 5Q-5D-5L: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 647–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y
11.
FlynnN.KuysS.FroudeE.CookeD. (2019). Introducing robotic upper limb training into routine clinical practice for stroke survivors: Perceptions of occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(4), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12594
12.
FranceschiniM.MazzoleniS.GoffredoM.PournajafS.GalafateD.CriscuoloD.AgostiM.PosteraroF. (2019). Upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation versus physical therapy on subacute stroke patients: A follow-up study. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 24(1), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/jbmt.2019.03.016
13.
FronteraW.BeanJ.DamianoD.Ehrlich-JonesL.Fried-OkenM.JetteA.JungR.LieberR.MalecJ.MuellerM.OttenbacherK.TanseyK.ThompsonA. (2017). Rehabilitation research at the national institutes of health: Moving the field forward (executive summary). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.713003
14.
Fugl-MeyerA.JaaskoL.LeymanI.OlssonS.SteglindS. (1975). The post-stroke hemiplegic patient: A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.2340/1650197771331
15.
GaleaM.KhanF.AmatyaB.ElmalikA.KlaicM.AbbottG. (2016). Implementation of a technology-assisted programme to intensify upper limb rehabilitation in neurologically impaired participants: A prospective study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 48(6), 522–528.https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2087
16.
GandollaM.AntoniettiA.LongatelliV.PedrocchiA. (2020). The effectiveness of wearable upper limb assistive devices in degenerative neuromuscular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Bioengineering & Biotechnology, 7(450), 1–16. https://doi/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00450
HaywardK.KramerS.DaltonE.HughesG.BrodtmannA.ChurilovL.CloudG.CorbettD.JolliffeL.KaffenbergerT.RethnamV.ThijsV.WardN.LanninN.BernhardtJ. (2021). Timing and dose of upper limb motor intervention after stroke: A systematic review. Stroke, 52(11), 3706–3717. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034348
19.
JetteD.WarrenR.WirtallaC. (2005). The relation between therapy intensity and outcomes of rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(3), 373–379.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.018
20.
KwakkelG.LanninN.BorschmannK.EnglishC.AliM.ChurilovL.SaposnikG.WinsteinC.van WegenE.WolfS.KrakauerJBernhardtJ. (2017). Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. International Journal of Stroke, 12(5), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017711813
21.
LangC.LohseK.BirkenmeierR. (2015). Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: Prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology, 28(6), 549–555.https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000256
22.
LaverK.LangeB.GeorgeS.DeutschJ.SaposnikG.CrottyM. (2017). Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, 11, CD008349. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub4
23.
LawM.CooperB.StrongS.StewartD.RigbyP.LettsL. (1996). The person-environment-occupation model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(9), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749606300103
24.
LenzeE.MuninM.QuearT.DewA.RogersJ.BegleyA.ReynoldsC. (2004). The Pittsburgh rehabilitation participation scale: Reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(3), 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.001
25.
LohseK.LangC.BoydL. (2014). Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 45(7), 2053–2058. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695
26.
Maceira-ElviraP.PopaT.SchmidA.HummelF. (2019). Combining upper limb robotic rehabilitation with other therapeutic approaches after stroke: Current status, rationale, and challenges. Journal of Neuro Engineering and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub4
27.
MassettiT.da SilvaT.CrocettaT.GuarnieriR.de FreitasB.LopesP.WatsonS.TonksJ.MonteiroC. (2018). The clinical utility of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: A systematic review. Journal of Central Nervous System Disease, 10, 1–18. https://doi/10.1177/1179573518813541.
28.
MazzoleniS.DuretC.GrosmaireA.BattiniE. (2017). Combining upper limb robotic rehabilitation with other therapeutic approaches after stroke: Current status, rationale, and challenges. Biomed Research International, 2017, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8905637
29.
MehrholzJ.PohlM.PlatzT.KuglerJ.ElsnerB. (2018). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(9), 1–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub5
30.
NewtonS.DaltonE.AngJ.KlaicM.ThijsV.HaywardK. (2023). Dose, content, and context of usual care in stroke upper limb motor interventions: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 37(11), 1437–1450. https://10.1177/02692155231172295
31.
PatelJ.FluetG.OiuO.YarossiM.MeriansA.TunikE.AdamovichS. (2019). Intensive virtual reality and robotic based upper limb training compared to usual care, and associated cortical reorganization, in the acute and early sub-acute periods post stroke: A feasibility study. Journal of Neuroengineering & Rehabilitation, 16(92), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0563-3
32.
PocockSJ. (1983). Clinical trials: A practical approach. Whiley.
SchneiderE.LanninN.AdaL.SchmidtJ. (2016). Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: A systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy, 62(4), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phys.2016.08.006
SerradaI.McDonnellM.HillierS. (2016). What is current practice for upper limb rehabilitation in the acute hospital setting following stroke? A Systematic Review. Neuro Rehabilitation, 39(3), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-161374
Tickle-DegnenL. (2013). Nuts and bolts of conducting feasibility studies. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(2), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.006270
39.
VeerbeekJ.van WegenE.van PeppenR.van der WeesP.HendriksE.RietbergM.KwakkelG. (2014). What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 9(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.137/jourhal.pone.0087987
40.
VelstraI.BallertC.CiezaA. (2011). A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health as reference. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 3(9), 846–860.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.03.014
41.
WalkerA.McCluskeyA.HaywardK.QuaillJ.ShrimptonS.BarkerR. (2017). Dose and content of upper limb training in an Australian rehabilitation unit: better than previously reported yet poorer than recommended. [Paper presentation]. SMART Strokes 2017 Conference, Gold Coast Queensland Australia. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017714154
42.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. World Health Organization.
