↓ Skip to main content

Usability Evaluations of a Wearable Inertial Sensing System and Quality of Movement Metrics for Stroke Survivors by Care Professionals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Usability Evaluations of a Wearable Inertial Sensing System and Quality of Movement Metrics for Stroke Survivors by Care Professionals
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bart Klaassen, Bert-Jan F. van Beijnum, Jeremia P. Held, Jasper Reenalda, Fokke B. van Meulen, Peter H. Veltink, Hermie J. Hermens

Abstract

Inertial motion capture systems are used in many applications such as measuring the movement quality in stroke survivors. The absence of clinical effectiveness and usability evidence in these assistive technologies into rehabilitation has delayed the transition of research into clinical practice. Recently, a new inertial motion capture system was developed in a project, called INTERACTION, to objectively measure the quality of movement (QoM) in stroke survivors during daily-life activity. With INTERACTION, we are to be able to investigate into what happens with patients after discharge from the hospital. Resulting QoM metrics, where a metric is defined as a measure of some property, are subsequently presented to care professionals. Metrics include for example: reaching distance, walking speed, and hand distribution plots. The latter shows a density plot of the hand position in the transversal plane. The objective of this study is to investigate the opinions of care professionals in using these metrics obtained from INTERACTION and its usability. By means of a semi-structured interview, guided by a presentation, presenting two patient reports. Each report includes several QoM metric (like reaching distance, hand position density plots, shoulder abduction) results obtained during daily-life measurements and in clinic and were evaluated by care professionals not related to the project. The results were compared with care professionals involved within the INTERACTION project. Furthermore, two questionnaires (5-point Likert and open questionnaire) were handed over to rate the usability of the metrics and to investigate if they would like such a system in their clinic. Eleven interviews were conducted, where each interview included either two or three care professionals as a group, in Switzerland and The Netherlands. Evaluation of the case reports (CRs) by participants and INTERACTION members showed a high correlation for both lower and upper extremity metrics. Participants were most in favor of hand distribution plots during daily-life activities. All participants mentioned that visualizing QoM of stroke survivors over time during daily-life activities has more possibilities compared to current clinical assessments. They also mentioned that these metrics could be important for self-evaluation of stroke survivors. The results showed that most participants were able to understand the metrics presented in the CRs. For a few metrics, it remained difficult to assess the underlying cause of the QoM. Hence, a combination of metrics is needed to get a better insight of the patient. Furthermore, it remains important to report the state (e.g., how the patient feels), its surroundings (outside, inside the house, on a slippery surface), and detail of specific activities (does the patient grasps a piece of paper or a heavy cooking pan but also dual tasks). Altogether, it remains a questions how to determine what the patient is doing and where the patient is doing his or her activities.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 27 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Engineering 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 30 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,338,385
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#942
of 6,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,099
of 308,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,685 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.