Uptake of Technology for Neurorehabilitation in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Technology-based interventions offer many opportunities to enhance neurorehabilitation, with associated research activity gathering pace. Despite this fact, translation for use in clinical practice has lagged research innovation. An overview of the current "state of play" regarding the extent of clinical uptake and factors that might influence use of technologies is required. This scoping review explored the uptake of technologies as neurorehabilitation interventions in clinical practice and factors that are reported to influence their uptake.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review was conducted with narrative synthesis and evidence mapping. Studies of any design reporting uptake or implementation of technology (wearable devices, virtual reality, robotics, and exergaming) for movement neurorehabilitation after stroke and other neurological conditions were sought via a formal search strategy in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, AMED, and Embase. Full-text screening and data extraction were completed independently by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 609 studies returned, 25 studies were included after title, abstract, and full-text screening. Studies investigated a range of technologies at various stages of development. Only 4 of the included studies explored the sustained use of technology in practice. The following 5 themes representing experiences of technology use emerged: perceived usefulness, technology design, social interaction, integration with services, and suggested improvements to enhance uptake.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of uptake and use of neurorehabilitation technologies in clinical practice is limited. The synthesis provided comprehensive knowledge of barriers to and facilitators of uptake to be considered in future protocols, including a steep learning curve required to engage with technology, a need for a supportive organizational culture, and a need for user involvement in both design and development.

IMPACT

This scoping review has provided indicators from current evidence of important factors to consider in the planning of research into and clinical implementation of technologies for neurorehabilitation. It serves to support an evidence-based, user-centered platform for improved research on and translation of technologies in neurorehabilitation clinical practice.

Risk of longer-term neurological conditions in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Coast Guard Cohort Study - Five years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Long-term neurological health risks associated with oil spill cleanup exposures are largely unknown. We aimed to investigate risks of longer-term neurological conditions among U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) responders to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill.

METHODS

We used data from active duty members of the DWH Oil Spill Coast Guard Cohort Study (N=45224). Self-reported oil spill exposures were ascertained from post-deployment surveys. Incident neurological outcomes were classified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, codes from military health encounter records up to 5.5 years post-DWH. We used Cox Proportional Hazards regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for various incident neurological diagnoses (2010-2015). Oil spill responder (n=5964) vs. non-responder (n= 39260) comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, and race, while within-responder comparisons were additionally adjusted for smoking.

RESULTS

Compared to those not responding to the spill, spill responders had reduced risks for headache (aHR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96), syncope and collapse (aHR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-0.97), and disturbance of skin sensation (aHR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.96). Responders reporting ever (n=1068) vs. never (n=2424) crude oil inhalation exposure were at increased risk for several individual and grouped outcomes related to headaches and migraines (aHR range: 1.39-1.83). Crude oil inhalation exposure was also associated with elevated risks for an inflammatory nerve condition, mononeuritis of upper limb and mononeuritis multiplex (aHR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.04-2.83), and tinnitus (aHR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.23-2.96), a condition defined by ringing in one or both ears. Risk estimates for those neurological conditions were higher in magnitude among responders reporting exposure to both crude oil and oil dispersants than among those reporting crude oil only.

CONCLUSION

In this large study of active duty USCG responders to the DWH disaster, self-reported spill cleanup exposures were associated with elevated risks for longer-term neurological conditions.

The Attitudes of Physicians and the General Public toward Prognostic Disclosure of Different Serious Illnesses: a Korean Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Although international guidelines recommend palliative care approaches for many serious illnesses, the palliative needs of patients with serious illnesses other than cancer are often unmet, mainly due to insufficient prognosis-related discussion. We investigated physicians' and the general public's respective attitudes toward prognostic disclosure for several serious illnesses.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 928 physicians, sourced from 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association, and 1,005 members of the general public, sourced from all 17 administrative divisions in Korea.

RESULTS

For most illnesses, most physicians (adjusted proportions - end-organ failure, 99.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 98.5%; acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS], 98.4%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 96.0%; and dementia, 89.6%) and members of the general public (end-organ failure, 92.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 92.5%; AIDS, 91.5%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 92.1%; and dementia, 86.9%) wanted to be informed if they had a terminal prognosis. For physicians and the general public, the primary factor to consider when disclosing terminal status was "the patient's right to know his/her condition" (31.0%). Yet, the general public was less likely to prefer prognostic disclosure than physicians. Particularly, when their family members were patients, more than 10% of the general public did not want patients to be informed of their terminal prognosis. For the general public, the main reason for not disclosing prognosis was "psychological burden such as anxiety and depression" (35.8%), while for the physicians it was "disclosure would have no beneficial effect" (42.4%).

CONCLUSION

Most Physicians and the general public agreed that disclosure of a terminal prognosis respects patient autonomy for several serious illnesses. The low response rate of physicians might limit the generalizability of the results.