Usability and Functional Outcomes of the Obi3 Robotic Feeding Device Among People With Disabilities, Caregivers, and Providers: Mixed Methods Study.
Andrea D Fairman, Ryan B Osal, Heather Keeton and 1 others
A manufacturer-funded 1-week usability trial of a robotic feeding arm found all three user groups rated it well above the usability benchmark, and self-feeding scores improved on an unvalidated scale.
No adverse events. Not evidence of long-term benefit.
Key findings
1The primary outcome, the System Usability Scale, was met: adult users scored 82.78, caregivers 85.18, and providers 85.00, all above the 68 benchmark for average usability.
2Self-feeding impairment ratings dropped from a mean of 3.80 to 0.60 across all 15 participants, but the scale was built internally by the manufacturer, has no published validity or reliability data, and was rated by the same therapists who were study participants.
3No adverse events, device deficiencies, or unanticipated problems were reported during the 1-week trial.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
The self-feeding impairment scale was developed internally by the manufacturer, has no published validity, reliability, or responsiveness data, and was rated by the same therapists who were study participants. The trial lasted one week; it says nothing about whether improvements hold, whether skills transfer, or whether caregiver burden changes over months. There was no control group, no randomisation, and no blinding, so the observed changes cannot be separated from novelty, practice effects, or the attention of a research team. The sample was small (50 enrolled, 42 completing surveys) and the target of 60 was not met. The manufacturer sponsored the study, coordinated it, and multiple authors are employees, consultants, or equity holders of the company. No objective nutritional, biomechanical, or meal-duration measures were collected. The authors state that the self-feeding improvements should be read as preliminary evidence of functional feasibility, not conclusive evidence of clinical efficacy.
Declared interests
The device manufacturer, DESĪN LLC, sponsored and coordinated the study. One author is Director of Clinical Affairs at DESĪN LLC and was also a paid consultant on the study; another is a paid employee and subinvestigator; a third holds equity in the company. A fourth author received compensation through a company supervised by the first author. All conflicts were reviewed by the IRB.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →