Heather A Feldner1, Darrin Howell2, Valerie E Kelly3, Sarah Westcott McCoy3, Katherine M Steele2. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: hfeldner@uw.edu. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the perceived value, benefits, drawbacks, and ideas for technology development and implementation of surface electromyography recordings in neurologic rehabilitation practice from clinical stakeholder perspectives. DESIGN: A qualitative, phenomenological study was conducted. In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups were completed. Sessions included questions about clinician perspectives and demonstrations of surface electromyography systems to garner perceptions of specific system features. SETTING: The study was conducted at hospital systems in a large metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Adult and pediatric physical therapists, occupational therapists, and physiatrists from inpatient, outpatient, and research settings (N=22) took part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, then coded for analysis into themes. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged: (1) low-tech clinical practice and future directions for rehabilitation; (2) barriers to surface electromyography uptake and potential solutions; (3) benefits of surface electromyography for targeted populations; and (4) essential features of surface electromyography systems. CONCLUSIONS: Surface electromyography systems were not routinely utilized for assessment or intervention following neurologic injury. Despite recognition of potential clinical benefits of surface electromyography use, clinicians identified limited time and resources as key barriers to implementation. Perspectives on design and surface electromyography system features indicated the need for streamlined, intuitive, and clinically effective applications. Further research is needed to determine feasibility and clinical relevance of surface electromyography in rehabilitation intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the perceived value, benefits, drawbacks, and ideas for technology development and implementation of surface electromyography recordings in neurologic rehabilitation practice from clinical stakeholder perspectives. DESIGN: A qualitative, phenomenological study was conducted. In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups were completed. Sessions included questions about clinician perspectives and demonstrations of surface electromyography systems to garner perceptions of specific system features. SETTING: The study was conducted at hospital systems in a large metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Adult and pediatric physical therapists, occupational therapists, and physiatrists from inpatient, outpatient, and research settings (N=22) took part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, then coded for analysis into themes. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged: (1) low-tech clinical practice and future directions for rehabilitation; (2) barriers to surface electromyography uptake and potential solutions; (3) benefits of surface electromyography for targeted populations; and (4) essential features of surface electromyography systems. CONCLUSIONS: Surface electromyography systems were not routinely utilized for assessment or intervention following neurologic injury. Despite recognition of potential clinical benefits of surface electromyography use, clinicians identified limited time and resources as key barriers to implementation. Perspectives on design and surface electromyography system features indicated the need for streamlined, intuitive, and clinically effective applications. Further research is needed to determine feasibility and clinical relevance of surface electromyography in rehabilitation intervention.
Authors: Diane L Damiano; Jeffrey M Quinlivan; Bryan F Owen; Patricia Payne; Karen C Nelson; Mark F Abel Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Raymond A H M Swinkels; Roland P S van Peppen; Harriet Wittink; Jan W H Custers; Anna J H M Beurskens Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-05-22 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Regitze A S Pals; Ulla M Hansen; Clea B Johansen; Christian S Hansen; Marit E Jørgensen; Jesper Fleischer; Ingrid Willaing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Yusha Liu; Rafael M L Silva; Jeffrey B Friedrich; Dennis S Kao; Pierre D Mourad; Aaron E Bunnell Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 5.169
Authors: Christina Papazian; Nick A Baicoianu; Keshia M Peters; Heather A Feldner; Katherine M Steele Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2021-06-05