Passive Trunk Exoskeleton Acceptability and Effects on Self-efficacy in Employees with Low-Back Pain: A Mixed Method Approach.

The quantitative analysis came from a subgroup of a larger study: 19 participants were selected and data from 2 were discarded, so the sample was small and used repeated measurements in the same participants rather than a randomised control comparison. Most participants had high baseline self-efficacy scores, above the proposed non-return-to-work cut-off, leaving little room for improvement. The self-efficacy change was measured immediately after a short try-out, not during normal work over time, and the tasks performed were not the same as those in the questionnaire. The authors question whether the average 5-point change, or 7% increase, is meaningful enough to change behaviour. The focus-group audio recording failed, so the discussion was reconstructed from verified notes, and only direct quotes from the double interview were available. One investigator coded the qualitative data, with themes discussed with a team member, and the participants were from two specific Dutch workplaces, so generalisation is uncertain. The SPEXOR device was not ready for workplace use, so findings are about potential acceptability, not a tested commercial intervention.

The supplied text names Horizon 2020 Framework Programme as funder. It does not provide a competing-interests declaration or say that the funder designed or wrote the manuscript.

Do not conclude that a passive trunk exoskeleton reduces low-back pain, disability or work absence. The study measured self-efficacy after a brief try-out in 19 selected employees with mostly high baseline scores, and the authors question whether the average 5-point change on an 80-point scale is meaningful.