Use of Technology in the Rehabilitation Setting: Therapy Observations, Mixed Methods Analysis, and Data Visualization.
Courtney Celian, Hannah Redd, Kevin Smaller and 4 others
PMID 40463779WHAT IT FOUND
Rehabilitation technology is widely available but often unused.
Therapists favored familiar, electrically powered devices for balance and gait training. Setup times were typically short. Multitasking during treatment was common. Novel technologies like exoskeletons were rarely used, suggesting a gap between available tools and clinical workflow.
Key findings
01Only 42% of inventoried rehabilitation technologies were observed being used during therapy sessions.
02Physical therapists predominantly used electrically powered, actuated devices for balance and gait interventions, while occupational therapists used manual assessment kits for measurement.
03Therapists split their attention almost evenly between direct patient care and multitasking, primarily documentation, while using technology.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was conducted in a single research hospital with ample access to technology, which may not reflect settings with fewer resources. Observations were limited to shared gym spaces, potentially missing technology use in patient rooms or other areas. The number of clinicians observed was estimated based on employment data, not exact counts. The study did not compare technology use against nontechnological alternatives.
Declared interests
One author has financial interests in companies that develop and sell rehabilitation devices. The study was approved by an Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that low usage of novel technologies like exoskeletons indicates they are ineffective. The study highlights that adoption is heavily influenced by workflow fit, setup time, and perceived advantage over existing tools, not just clinical efficacy.