Giulia Monardo1, Chiara Pavese2,3, Ines Giorgi1, Marco Godi4, Roberto Colombo5. 1. Service of Psychology, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy. 2. Neurorehabilitation and Spinal Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy. 3. Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic, and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 4. Division of Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Veruno, Italy. 5. Service of Bioengineering, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Veruno, Italy.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this experiential review is to explore the state of the art of the literature regarding the evaluation tools available for assessment of patient motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation (robot rehabilitation, virtual reality rehabilitation, and serious games rehabilitation). Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature published from January 1990 to August 2019 was conducted. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO and carried out in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Results: The search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases identified a total of 333 records. After adjusting for duplicates and other inclusion criteria, 69 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. We found that authors used a wide range of dedicated questionnaires and, in about 50% of studies, a few validated tools to assess motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation. The instruments most used were the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0), and the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use (USE) scale. Motivation and satisfaction were generally portrayed as multidimensional concepts; overall, 29 domains were assessed by 9 different tools. Conclusion: The tools used in the current literature to assess patient motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation are quite variegated, but we would recommend use of the IMI and USE questionnaires based on their widespread diffusion. However, the choice of domains explored and number of items calls for harmonization. Ideally, this should be a joint task for the whole scientific community.
Objective: The aim of this experiential review is to explore the state of the art of the literature regarding the evaluation tools available for assessment of patient motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation (robot rehabilitation, virtual reality rehabilitation, and serious games rehabilitation). Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature published from January 1990 to August 2019 was conducted. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO and carried out in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Results: The search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases identified a total of 333 records. After adjusting for duplicates and other inclusion criteria, 69 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. We found that authors used a wide range of dedicated questionnaires and, in about 50% of studies, a few validated tools to assess motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation. The instruments most used were the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0), and the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use (USE) scale. Motivation and satisfaction were generally portrayed as multidimensional concepts; overall, 29 domains were assessed by 9 different tools. Conclusion: The tools used in the current literature to assess patient motivation and satisfaction during technology-assisted rehabilitation are quite variegated, but we would recommend use of the IMI and USE questionnaires based on their widespread diffusion. However, the choice of domains explored and number of items calls for harmonization. Ideally, this should be a joint task for the whole scientific community.
Authors: Francesco Zanatta; Anna Giardini; Antonia Pierobon; Marco D'Addario; Patrizia Steca Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.908