Identification of needs for an assistive robotic arm in individuals with tetraplegia: a mixed-methods approach.

Only seven people took part in the focus group, and some participants were relatives, so the qualitative findings come from a small, connected group. Only 29 caregivers started the caregiver survey, 9 completed part of it, and 4 answered all questions, so caregiver conclusions are very limited. The survey was only partially validated, and it used branched questions, so different respondents answered different numbers of items. Recruitment used word-of-mouth and chain-referral through disability associations, clinics, and physiotherapy practices, which can introduce selection bias. Only German-speaking individuals were included, so the needs may not match other countries or healthcare systems. The analysis did not examine needs by exact lesion level, complete versus incomplete injury, movement restriction, or time since injury. No participant was using a robotic arm at the time of data collection, and 31 of 33 survey respondents had never used one, so the findings are expectations rather than experience. The control options were not explained in the survey, so voice, joystick, touchscreen, and brain-computer interface responses may have meant different things to different participants. Missing data were present, and respondents could not modify answers after submission.

The Swiss Paraplegic Foundation is named as funder. No author conflict-of-interest declarations are reported in the supplied text.

Do not read the reported needs as evidence that an assistive robotic arm works. No participant used a robotic arm at the time of data collection, and the study reports preferences and limitations, not treatment effects.