title: Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Assistive Technologies, defined as "electrical or mechanical devices designed to help people recover movement" have demonstrated clinical benefits in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. Stroke services are becoming community-based and more reliant on self-management approaches. Assistive technologies could become important tools within self-management, however, in practice, few people currently use assistive technologies. This study investigated patients', family caregivers and health professionals' experiences and perceptions of stroke upper-limb rehabilitation and assistive technology use and identified the barriers and facilitators to their use in supporting stroke self-management.
  
  
  METHODS
  A three-day exhibition of assistive technologies was attended by 204 patients, family caregivers/friends and health professionals. Four focus groups were conducted with people purposively sampled from exhibition attendees. They included i) people with stroke who had used assistive technologies (n = 5), ii) people with stroke who had not used assistive technologies (n = 6), iii) family caregivers (n = 5) and iv) health professionals (n = 6). The audio-taped focus groups were facilitated by a moderator and observer. All participants were asked to discuss experiences, strengths, weaknesses, barriers and facilitators to using assistive technologies. Following transcription, data were analysed using thematic analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All respondents thought assistive technologies had the potential to support self-management but that this opportunity was currently unrealised. All respondents considered assistive technologies could provide a home-based solution to the need for high intensity upper-limb rehabilitation. All stakeholders also reported significant barriers to assistive technology use, related to i) device design ii) access to assistive technology information and iii) access to assistive technology provision. The lack of and need for a coordinated system for assistive technology provision was apparent. A circular limitation of lack of evidence in clinical settings, lack of funded provision, lack of health professional knowledge about assistive technologies and confidence in prescribing them leading to lack of assistive technology service provision meant that often patients either received no assistive technologies or they and/or their family caregivers liaised directly with manufacturers without any independent expert advice.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Considerable systemic barriers to realising the potential of assistive technologies in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation were reported. Attention needs to be paid to increasing evidence of assistive technology effectiveness and develop clinical service provision. Device manufacturers, researchers, health professionals, service funders and people with stroke and family caregivers need to work creatively and collaboratively to develop new funding models, improve device design and increase knowledge and training in assistive technology use.
authors: School of Health and Social Care, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK. cehill@bournemouth.ac.uk.
authors: Sara
authors: S
authors: Demain
authors: Jane
authors: J
authors: Burridge
authors: Caroline
authors: C
authors: Ellis-Hill
authors: Ann-Marie
authors: AM
authors: Hughes
authors: Lucy
authors: L
authors: Yardley
authors: Lisa
authors: L
authors: Tedesco-Triccas
authors: Ian
authors: I
authors: Swain
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001294:Attitude to Health; D017028:Caregivers / Q000523:psychology; D005190:Family / Q000523:psychology; D005260:Female; D017144:Focus Groups; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012648:Self Care / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology; D012656:Self-Help Devices / Q000523:psychology*; D012737:Sex Factors; D020521:Stroke / Q000523:psychology; D000071939:Stroke Rehabilitation
references: Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12):3828-33
references: 19797698
references: JAMA. 2006 Nov 1;296(17):2095-104
references: 17077374
references: Age Ageing. 2009 Jan;38(1):27-32
references: 19141506
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Apr;79(1):55-61
references: 19709844
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Apr;79(1):62-8
references: 19733460
references: BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Sep 19;7:148
references: 17880693
references: Stroke. 2011 May;42(5):1380-6
references: 21474804
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD006876
references: 22696362
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Apr;75(4):394-8
references: 8172497
references: Stroke. 1997 Dec;28(12):2518-27
references: 9412643
references: BMJ. 2007 Nov 10;335(7627):968-70
references: 17991978
references: Stroke. 2012 Jul;43(7):1849-57
references: 22713491
references: Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2181-6
references: 12907818
references: Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013 May;8(3):181-9
references: 22794937
references: Eur J Neurol. 2005 Jun;12 Suppl 1:78-84
references: 15877785
references: J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006 Jan;32(1):30-2
references: 16492335
references: Curr Opin Neurol. 2010 Dec;23(6):671-7
references: 20962639
references: Stroke. 2005 Jul;36(7):1480-4
references: 15947263
references: Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Oct;25(8):774-80
references: 21628605
references: Stroke. 2004 Nov;35(11):2529-39
references: 15472114