Technology for improving cognitive function: Report on a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Interagency Committee on Disability Research

Evaluation of an Electronic Care and Rehabilitation Planning Tool With Stroke Survivors With Aphasia: Usability Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic illnesses with physical and cognitive disabilities, particularly stroke survivors with aphasia, are often not involved in design and evaluation processes. As a consequence, existing eHealth services often do not meet the needs of this group of patients, which has resulted in a digital divide.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and user satisfaction of an electronic care and rehabilitation planning tool from the perspective of stroke survivors with aphasia. This would help us gain knowledge on how such a tool would need to be adapted for these patients for further development.

METHODS

Usability tests were conducted with 9 postdischarge stroke survivors with aphasia. Effectiveness was measured using task-based tests, and user satisfaction was studied through qualitative interviews at the end of each test. All tests were audio recorded, and each test lasted approximately 1 hour. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. As the tool can be used by stroke survivors either independently or with some support from their next of kin or care professionals, the research group decided to divide the participants into 2 groups. Group 1 did not receive any support during the tests, and group 2 received some minor support from the moderator.

RESULTS

The results showed that the care and rehabilitation planning tool was not effective for stroke survivors with aphasia, as many participants in group 1 did not accomplish the tasks successfully. Despite several usability problems and challenges in using the tool because of patients' disabilities, the participants were positive toward using the tool and found it useful for their care and rehabilitation journey.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to involve patients with chronic illnesses more in the design and evaluation processes of health information systems and eHealth services. eHealth services and health information systems designed for this group of patients should be more adaptable and flexible to provide them with appropriate functionalities and features, meet their needs, and be useful and easy to use. In addition, the design and evaluation processes should be adapted, considering the challenges of this patient group.

How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a "total approach to rehabilitation", combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970's, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.