Back

Social impact of the JACO wheelchair-mounted robotic arm on users and their caregivers

Gbetoho Atigossou, O. L.; Faieta, J.; Corcuff, M.; Campeau-Lecours, A.; Flamand, V.; Routhier, F.; Bouffard, J.

2024-09-19 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2024.09.18.24313906 medRxiv
Show abstract

The efficacious implementation of robotic assistive technologies must be built on a thorough understanding of stakeholders experiences and perceptions. This study provides an in-depth insight into the experiences and perceptions of users of the JACO wheelchair-mounted robotic arm and those of their caregivers. A sample of JACO users (n = 21; Female : 6; Male : 15) and caregivers (n = 11; Female: 2; Male: 9) participated in individual interviews used to gain qualitative insight into the impact of JACO on their day-to-day lives. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive coding process. Thematic analysis was conducted in accordance with the Consortium on Assistive Technology Outcomes Research (CATOR) taxonomy. This article exclusively reports data on the social impact of the JACO wheelchair-mounted robotic arm. In addition, participants completed three questionnaires to gather more objective data for quantitative assessment, these included the Caregiver Assistive Technology Outcome Measure (CATOM), a sociodemographic questionnaire, and a home-based questionnaire to assess the social impact of using JACO. Findings pointed to highly varied experiences among participants, including instances of positive, negative, and absence of effects from the use of JACO. Participants feedback fell within two broad categories, Human Assistance, and Cost and Use of Resources. This study provides nuanced and varied insight into the spectrum of the social impact of using JACO as perceived by users and their caregivers, highlighting the importance of considering each user as an individual with unique experiences and needs. Continued research is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.