In an era where technological advancements were transforming healthcare practices, the integration of robotic exoskeletons into rehabilitation therapies signified a major advancement. Despite their potential, the adoption rates of robotic exoskeletons among rehabilitation therapists remain low due to various barriers. This study was focused on developing a conceptual framework, utilizing the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to identify and tackle the perceptual barriers to the adoption of robotic exoskeletons, aiming to increase their acceptance among rehabilitation therapists through tailored educational initiatives. Methods included a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to assess therapists' perceptions of the technology's usefulness and ease of use. An educational webinar and workshop will be proposed as interventions to enhance familiarity with the technology and demonstrate its clinical benefits. By addressing misconceptions and operational challenges through tailored educational initiatives, this framework aimed to improve therapists’ acceptance of robotic exoskeletons. The study contributed to the ongoing discourse on technology adoption in healthcare, offering actionable insights for overcoming barriers to innovative rehabilitation tools. The proposed framework helps understand the dynamics of technology acceptance and guides effective strategies for increasing the adoption of robotic exoskeletons in clinical settings.
Aprile, I., & Pecchioli, C., Loreti, S., Cruciani, A., Padua, L., & Germanotta, M. (2019). Improving the efficiency of robot-mediated rehabilitation by using a new organizational model: An observational feasibility study in an Italian rehabilitation center. Applied Sciences, 9, 5357. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245357
Baloh, J., Zhu, X., & Ward, M. M. (2018). Implementing team huddles in small rural hospitals: How does the Kotter model of change apply? Journal of Nursing Management, 26(5), 571-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12584
Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research: Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘Action research and minority problems’ (1946). Action Research, 4(4), 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306070101
Bukhari, S. A. (2021). Sample Size Determination Using Krejcie and Morgan Table. Https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11445.19687
Eyto, A., Shore, L., & O'Sullivan, L. (2020). Technology acceptance and perceptions of robotic assistive devices by older adults - implications for exoskeleton design. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1817988
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Fourth Industrial Revolution Policy, National (2021). Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Gimigliano, F., & Negrini, S. (2017). The World Health Organization "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action". European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 53(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04746-3
Health White Paper for Malaysia (2023). Strengthening people’s health, future-proofing the nation’s health system. Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159-172.
Kerr, A., Smith, M., Reid, L., & Baillie, L. (2018). Adoption of stroke rehabilitation technologies by the user community: Qualitative study. 5(2). https://doi.org/10.2196/rehab.9219
Klaic, M., Fong, J., Crocher, V., Davies, K., Brock, K., Sutton, E., Oetomo, D., Tan, Y., & Galea, M. P. (2022). Application of the extended technology acceptance model to explore clinician likelihood to use robotics in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2060356
Koerner, K., & Douglas, B. (2017). Leading change throughout the continuum of care. Journal of Community & Public Health Nursing, 3(4), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-9846.1000199
Kufeoglu, S. (2022). SDG-17: Partnerships for the Goals. In (pp. 497-504). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07127-0_19
Laut, J., Porfiri, M., & Raghavan, P. (2016). The present and future of robotic technology in rehabilitation. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports, 4(4), 312-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-016-0139-0
Li, L., Tyson, S., & Weightman, A. (2021). Professionals' views and experiences of using rehabilitation robotics with stroke survivors: A mixed methods survey. Frontiers in Medical Technology, 3, 780090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2021.780090
Liu, L., Cruz, A. M., Rios Rincon, A., Buttar, V., Ranson, Q., & Goertzen, D. (2014). What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation – a study using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.923529
Lo, K., Stephenson, M., & Lockwood, C. (2020). Adoption of robotic stroke rehabilitation into clinical settings: A qualitative descriptive analysis. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 18(4), 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000231
Marikyan, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2023). Technology acceptance model: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed.), TheoryHub Book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk
Luciani, B., Braghin, F., Pedrocchi, A. L. G., & Gandolla, M. (2023). Technology Acceptance Model for Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation of the Upper Limbs from Therapists’ Perspectives. Sensors, 23(3), 1721. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/3/1721
Mudey, R., & vardhan, V. (2022). Robotic devices and systems in physiotherapy- A review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, 3035-3038. https://doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2022.13.s06.408
Ouendi, N., Hubaut, R., Pelayo, S., Anceaux, F., & Wallard, L. (2022). The rehabilitation robot: Factors influencing its use, advantages, and limitations in clinical rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology.
Postol, N., Barton, J., Wakely, L., Bivard, A., Spratt, N. J., & Marquez, J. (2023). "Are we there yet?" expectations and experiences with lower limb robotic exoskeletons: A qualitative evaluation of the therapist perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2183992
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2008). Lessons learnt undertaking a large-scale systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'08) (pp. 110-118). School of Computing and Mathematics, Keele University; Department of Computer Science, Durham University.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Warutkar, V., Dadgal, R., & Mangulkar, U. R. (2022). Use of robotics in gait rehabilitation following stroke: A review. Cureus, 14(11), e31075. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31075
Zanatta, F., Giardini, A., Pierobon, A., D’Addario, M., & Steca, P. (2022). A systematic review on the usability of robotic and virtual reality devices in neuromotor rehabilitation: Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07821-w
Yew, C. K., & Mahadi, N. (2024). A Conceptual Framework to Reduce Gaps in the Adoption of Robotic Exoskeletons by Therapists. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(10), 2248–2257.
Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
