Stakeholder engagement to accelerate translation of rehabilitation technology

Research Objectives: To describe the process and outcomes of multi-stakeholder panels during the proof-of-concept and proof-of-product stages of rehabilitation technology development for measuring impairments.

Design: Descriptive, qualitative study from seven stakeholder panels.

Setting: Translational research hospital in which clinicians and researchers are integrated in the same space.

Participants: Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Physicians, Stroke Survivors, Researchers

Interventions: Stakeholder panel meetings one hour in length that included a 10-minute presentation of the device followed by a guided discussion with a moderator. After the meetings, the research core team developed concise reports, highlighting the main themes of the discussion.

Main Outcome Measures: Lessons learned, data richness, and themes related to clinician and consumer feedback in meetings with varied formats.

Results: Data was provided from five in-person, one remote, and one hybrid multi-stakeholder discussion panel. Individual participants provided additional verbal and written feedback from individual meetings and individual email exchanges following the mixed-group panels. Subjectively, more rich data and robust participation was noted in remote meetings compared to in-person meetings. However, stroke participants demonstrated less engagement during remote meetings and required a 1:1 follow-up. Technical difficulties during hybrid stakeholder meetings reduced the effectiveness of communication between panelists. The session moderator provided important input to facilitate constructive feedback rather than a barriers-focused and defense of researchers’ products. Questions were accurately directed towards intended populations, resulting in immediate feedback. Advancing from the proof-of-concept to proof-of-product stages led to more robust feedback due to increased experience of panel members. Researchers reported that the stakeholder meetings and subsequent reports at both stages were helpful and assisted with development of the technology.

Conclusions: Rehabilitation technology development is best supported with frequent feedback from multi-stakeholders. Additional research is needed to support increased richness of data from feedback provided in mixed-group, like-minded group, and individual sessions.

Author(s) Disclosures: N/A