Experience of Use and Biopsychosocial Effects of Robotic and Virtual Reality Devices in Neuromotor Rehabilitation

The implementation of virtual reality (VR) and robotic devices in neuromotor rehabilitation has so far provided promising evidence in terms of efficacy throughout different clinical populations. Positive changes in patient's motor and functional outcomes were reported along with an increased autonomy in the activities of daily living (ADLs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The experience of use of these technological devices and their impact on the cognitive and psychosocial outcomes remain still unclear, though. Adopting a biopsychosocial approach, the present two-arm, parallel, non-randomized prospective quasi-experimental study protocol aims to explore the short- and long-term effectiveness of robot-assisted therapy (RAT) and of VR-based neuromotor rehabilitation. Pre-post intervention effects will be estimated and compared between a group of patients undergoing conventional treatment and another group additionally participating in technology-based rehabilitation. The evaluation will include patient's functional status (ie, motor functionality, autonomy in ADLs, risk of falls), cognitive functioning (ie, attention and executive functions), HRQoL, and psychological aspects (ie, anxiety and depression symptoms, quality of life satisfaction). After the treatment, devices usability and experience of use, along with the related psychosocial impact will be also assessed.

Over the past two decades, the aging population and the related increase of acute and chronic diseases have led to the need for urgent healthcare solutions, including the implementation of interdisciplinary and innovative approaches in patients' care. Contextually, the field of neuromotor rehabilitation has shown deep interest in the deployment of robotic and virtual reality (VR) devices in recovery programs, given their multipurpose application. Robot-assisted therapy (RAT) has reported promising evidence so far, showing advantages like the possibility to provide repetitive, intensive, and task-oriented rehabilitation activities, including the opportunity to implement smaller workforce, optimized exercise, and real-time quantitative motor assessment and monitoring. To date, diverse robot typologies (ie, exoskeletons, end-effectors, soft-robots) have been implemented to treat different chronic and complex diseases like acquired brain injury (ABI), spinal cord injury (SCI), multiple sclerosis (MS), and Parkinson's disease (PD) reporting evidence in favor of their feasibility and an improvement in patient functionality, autonomy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Likewise, VR has been shown to be a promising tool to enhance rehabilitation outcomes. When various technical devices (eg, head-mounted displays, motion capture and tracking systems) are implemented, it can deliver realistic experiences by interacting with virtual environments (VEs) closely resembling everyday environments. To date, plenty of studies have tested and demonstrated the efficacy, for example, of VR-treadmill trainings for lower limbs, to improve gait and balance, ultimately reducing risk of falls, or of exercises in reaching and grasping virtual objects to target arms and manual movement, dexterity, and coordination. Besides, thanks to the multimodal and multisensory stimulation it can provides, VR has revealed to be an effective tool to obtain significant changes in cognitive outcomes (eg, memory, visual attention, executive functions). Lastly, such stimulation has been shown to have potential for increased patient engagement in the rehabilitation program, ultimately improving treatment compliance. Nevertheless, alongside the technological devices' complexity and the related clinical application, ensuring adequate patient engagement and adherence to treatment still represents an open challenge. Accordingly, the introduction of technology in rehabilitation programs has raised the issue of devices usability and experience of use. Usability specifically refers to a patient's perception and ability to use a device effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily. Factors like device ease-of-use and learnability are therefore essential when aiming to achieve adequate technology acceptance rate. Such factors, however, do not always sufficiently explain the complexity of the experience of use. To better expand the concept of device use, socio-cognitive and experiential factors (eg, emotions, motivation, satisfaction) need to be considered too. In light of the data in the literature, beyond motor and functional recovery what has been scarcely addressed up to date is the potential of RAT and VR to improve patient's psychosocial functioning. Moreover, to optimally enhance technological devices deployment in rehabilitation programs, a deeper understanding on their experience of use is increasingly needed. Following this line, the purpose of this study protocol is to explore, in a real-world clinical setting, both the experience of use and the biopsychosocial effectiveness of robotic and VR technology in patients undergoing neuromotor rehabilitation. In particular, this protocol outlines the procedures for exploring the perception and the effects of such technology across different neurological (ie, ABI, PD) and orthopedic (ie, total knee/hip arthroplasty) conditions and the implicit differences of the technological devices implemented. Accordingly, within/between-groups observations will be made as appropriate by considering consistent clinical populations and intervention procedures. Specifically, the study objectives are: 1. to explore pre- post-treatment differences and long-term (6-month follow-up) effects concerning: patient's HRQoL, quality of life satisfaction, anxiety and depression symptoms, cognitive functioning, and functional status; 2. to measure patient's perceived experience of the rehabilitation program, as well as the perceived experience of using the robotic and VR devices (user experience and device usability) and the related psychosocial impact; 3. to observe the differences in terms of device experience of use in relation to the pathology, disease severity, and the type of device implemented; 4. to extend the evaluation of the device's perceived usability to the therapists and explore to what extent this is associated to patient's perception of device usability and rehabilitation experience.