1. INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS Participants 61 currently practicing COTAs and OTs who provide stroke therapy in southern Wisconsin Procedures Surveys were distributed to seven facilities and at the annual Wisconsin OT Association Conference Measures Participants completed a survey based on both the original version developed by Chen & Bode (2011) and a modified version developed by previous OT students. Three sections of interest from the survey include: Demographic information: age, gender, education, practice setting, facility location, percentage caseload stroke, number of years providing stroke rehabilitation, and continuing education High-technology: knowledge of, access to, use of, and desire to use Factors relating to acquisition of, use of, and barriers to using high-technology devices using a five-point Likert scale Analysis Mean scores were ranked for each of the barriers to determine perceived importance Associations between variables were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square tests for independence CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sammie Pepper, OTS and Dorothy Edwards, PhD. Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Thank you to Dr. Edwards and Dr. McCurdy for their assistance, to my research partner Megan Cassidy, and to the participants who took the time to be involved in this project. It is important for OT clinics to acquire high-technology devices to enhance their stroke rehabilitation programs It is important for continuing education courses and academic programs to offer classes regarding the effectiveness and use of high-technology devices The most common barrier is problems with reimbursement. Initial cost of the device may be prohibitive and it may be difficult to get provided services covered by insurance. For each high-technology device, more therapists reported wanting to use them instead of currently using them. Exceptions included Wii, TENS, and E-stim, which were most similar in “use of” and “currently used.” Barriers to these devices may be lower because they are less expensive to acquire and in the case of TENS and E-stim, have been in use longer and are more accepted by therapists due to exposure during academic training. REFERENCES 1 Carolei, A., Sacco, S., De Santis, F., & Marini, C. (2002). Epidemiology of stroke. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension, 4(7-8), 479-483. 2 Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B., van der Grond, J., & Prevo, A. (2003). Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: Impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke, 34, 2181-2186. 3 Lemmens, R., Timmermans, A., Janssen-Potten, Y., Smeets, R., & Seelen, H. (2012). Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: A systematic review. BMC Neurology, 12(21), 1-17. 4 Chen, C., & Bode, R. (2011). Factors influencing therapists’ decision- making in the acceptance of new technology devices in stroke rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,90, 415-425. Loss of arm function impacts ability to engage in activities of daily living, causing greater dependency, restricted social participation, and decreased quality of life 3 It is important to understand the perspectives of Occupational Therapists (OTs) regarding the acceptance or resistance to high-technology devices in order to provide the best therapeutic outcomes possible 4 The purpose of the present study was to identify barriers that affect OT’s decisions to use high-technology devices to treat upper limb deficits post stroke There is an emerging amount of evidence supporting the use of high-technology devices for stroke rehabilitation Frequency of Responses to Problems with reimbursement by percentage caseload stroke (N = 60) Stroke is the leading cause of adult disability in Western countries 1 About half of people who have a stroke do not have arm function six months later 2 Frequency of Responses to Day-to-day logistics or difficulties by education (N = 61) Demographicsn (%) Age (years) 20-3415 (24.6) 35-4913 (21.3) 50+12 (19.7) No Response21 (34.4) Education COTA10 (16.4) BSOT40 (65.6) MSOT11 (18.0) Experience as an OT (years) 0-920 (32.8) 10-1919 (31.1) 20+21 (34.4) No Response1 (1.6) Percentage Caseload Stroke (%) 0-1923 (37.7) 20-4923 (37.7) 50-10013 (21.3) No Response2 (3.3) Barrier ImportanceMean (SD) Problems with reimbursement4.15 (1.08) Day-to-day logistics or difficulties (scheduling time for set up, needing additional staff) 4.10 (0.94) Inability for the high-tech device usage to be continued after discharge 4.07 (0.81) Negative impact on productivity3.87 (1.10) Lack of in-service training or technical support 3.82 (1.12) Maintenance requirements3.72 (0.93) Lack of patient interest3.46 (1.07) Use of equipment limits OT role in treatment 3.00 (1.20)  Educational Level was related to Day-to-day logistics (p =.03)  % Caseload Stroke was related to Problems with reimbursement (p =.03) High-Technology Devices# would like to use # currently used MIT-Manus150 Mirror-Image Motion Enabeler Robots (MIME)190 Assisted Rehabilitation and Measurement (ARM)160 Bi-Manu-Track163 Neuro-Rehabilitation Robot (NeReBot)180 Continuous Passive Motion (CPM)2612 GENTLEs141 Virtual Reality Technology3212 Electrical Stimulation (E-stim)5147 Shock Wave Treatment130 EMG/Biofeedback3414 Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS)3426 Wii4841 Bioness H200 Hand Rehabilitation System4323 Saeboflex216 Rhythmic Auditory-Motor Entrainment211 Barriers to the Use of High-Technology Devices to Treat Upper Extremity Impairments Post Stroke Demographic Factors Impacting Barriers  Frequency of “Would like to use” is greater than “currently used” for all devices Stroke rehabilitation for deficits in arm function may involve traditional approaches as well as high- technology devices