RESULTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS Integration of New Technology into Clinical Practice for Stroke Rehabilitation Jocelyn Wack, OTS and Dorothy Farrar Edwards, PhD Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology - University of Wisconsin-Madison Background  There are over 5 million stroke survivors in the U.S.  Only 50% of individuals with stroke are likely to regain full functional use of their affected upper extremity (UE).  Occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants (OTs and COTAs) utilize many different treatment techniques and approaches in the goal of restoring UE function.  New technology devices (NTDs) like functional electrical stimulation (FES) and robotics have been shown to decrease UE motor impairment, increase strength, and improve function in individuals with stroke.  NTDs are being developed and used in practice for UE rehabilitation, but therapists’ awareness, acceptance, and incorporation of these devices are unclear. Purposes of Study  To identify the frequency of high technology device use by practicing OTs and COTAs in the Madison area.  To identify the main factors therapists consider when deciding to utilize a high tech device for patients with stroke.  A special thank you to my research mentor Dr. Edwards for her guidance, and to my research partner Rachel Testi for her patience and dedication.  Thank you to the Gertrude Gaston fund for funding this study.  Thank you to the participants who took time out of their busy schedules to complete our surveys.  Thank you to my loving family and friends for their never-ending support. Participants  Practicing OTs and COTAs in the greater metropolitan area of Madison, WI who work with or have worked with patients with stroke for at least two years. Procedures  Preliminary s were sent out to OTs in the Madison area to ascertain an approximate number of OTs and COTAs in this geographical area who currently work with patients with stroke.  Fifty-four surveys were distributed by hand to eight facilities to gain general information from these practicing therapists. Of the 39 surveys returned, 31 fit the inclusion criteria and were included in this study (response rate of 57.4%). Measures  Participants completed a survey adapted from Chen & Bode (2011).  Demographic information included: OTR or COTA, number of years they’ve been practicing, which setting they work in, number of months they’ve worked at the facility, percentage of caseload that is comprised of patients with stroke, and how many low and high tech devices their facility has that they use with a patient with stroke.  Therapists rated the importance of seven factors in the decision to use a high tech device.  Therapists rated the significance of nine barriers to the use of high tech devices. INTRODUCTION CONCLUSIONS Importance of Factors in Decision to Use High Tech Devices Mean Use as a Supplement to Therapy3.5 Acceptance by Patients3.5 Appropriateness for the Setting3.5 Feedback Provided by Device3.1 Therapist’s Experience3.1 Acceptance by Other Therapists2.9 Having a Role in the Decision to Acquire Device 2.9 Participant Demographics MeanSD Years of Experience Years at Facility Stroke Caseload 21.8%13.9%  There is growing evidence of efficacy of high tech devices in UE stroke rehabilitation, but these devices are not being used in stroke treatment in Madison.  It is essential that therapists become aware of the evidence supporting high tech approaches to therapy and increase implementation of these devices in their current practice.  Mandatory training protocols in facilities and clinics, as well as in coursework curriculum, could increase utilization of these devices, therefore decreasing UE impairment while increasing quality of life and activity participation.  OTs and COTAs in Madison are using more low tech devices than high tech devices.  The use of high tech devices does not differ significantly by setting.  The main factors in deciding whether or not to use high tech devices are: the use of the device as a supplement to hands-on therapy, acceptance by patients, and appropriateness for the setting.  Despite the positive effects that high tech device use has been shown to have on UE function, a large percentage of the therapists rated negative impact on outcomes to be a very important factor in the barriers to use of high tech devices. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE