Design and Development of a Telerehabilitation Platform for Patients With Phantom Limb Pain: A User-Centered Approach

Background Phantom limb pain is a frequent and persistent problem following amputation. Achieving sustainable favorable effects on phantom limb pain requires therapeutic interventions such as mirror therapy that target maladaptive neuroplastic changes in the central nervous system. Unfortunately, patients’ adherence to unsupervised exercises is generally poor and there is a need for effective strategies such as telerehabilitation to support long-term self-management of patients with phantom limb pain. Objective The main aim of this study was to describe the user-centered approach that guided the design and development of a telerehabilitation platform for patients with phantom limb pain. We addressed 3 research questions: (1) Which requirements are defined by patients and therapists for the content and functions of a telerehabilitation platform and how can these requirements be prioritized to develop a first prototype of the platform? (2) How can the user interface of the telerehabilitation platform be designed so as to match the predefined critical user requirements and how can this interface be translated into a medium-fidelity prototype of the platform? (3) How do patients with phantom limb pain and their treating therapists judge the usability of the medium-fidelity prototype of the telerehabilitation platform in routine care and how can the platform be redesigned based on their feedback to achieve a high-fidelity prototype? Methods The telerehabilitation platform was developed using an iterative user-centered design process. In the first phase, a questionnaire followed by a semistructured interview was used to identify the user requirements of both the patients and their physical and occupational therapists, which were then prioritized using a decision matrix. The second phase involved designing the interface of the telerehabilitation platform using design sketches, wireframes, and interface mock-ups to develop a low-fidelity prototype. Heuristic evaluation resulted in a medium-fidelity prototype whose usability was tested in routine care in the final phase, leading to the development of a high-fidelity prototype. Results A total of 7 categories of patient requirements were identified: monitoring, exercise programs, communication, settings, background information, log-in, and general requirements. One additional category emerged for therapists: patient management. Based on these requirements, patient and therapist interfaces for the telerehabilitation platform were developed and redesigned by the software development team in an iterative process, addressing the usability problems that were reported by the users during 4 weeks of field testing in routine care. Conclusions Our findings underline the importance of involving the users and other stakeholders early and continuously in an iterative design process, as well as the need for clear criteria to identify critical user requirements. A decision matrix is presented that incorporates the views of various stakeholders in systematically rating and prioritizing user requirements. The findings and lessons learned might help health care providers, researchers, software designers, and other stakeholders in designing and evaluating new teletreatments, and hopefully increase the likelihood of user acceptance.

[1]  H. Flor,et al.  Post-Amputation Pain Is Associated with the Recall of an Impaired Body Representation in Dreams—Results from a Nation-Wide Survey on Limb Amputees , 2015, PloS one.

[2]  Arto Ohinmaa,et al.  Evidence of benefit from telerehabilitation in routine care: a systematic review , 2011, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[3]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation , 1999, MIS Q..

[4]  Torgeir Dingsøyr,et al.  A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[5]  Francine Malouin,et al.  Decreasing phantom limb pain through observation of action and imagery: a case series. , 2011, Pain medicine.

[6]  S. Braun,et al.  Development of a Clinical Framework for Mirror Therapy in Patients with Phantom Limb Pain: An Evidence‐based Practice Approach , 2016, Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain.

[7]  Nicol Nijland,et al.  A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[8]  H. Flor,et al.  Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain: Brain changes and the role of body representation , 2014, European journal of pain.

[9]  O. Lindner Graded Motor Imagery for Pathologic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2008 .

[10]  Ian Robinson,et al.  Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[11]  Stephen T Wegener,et al.  Phantom pain, residual limb pain, and back pain in amputees: results of a national survey. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[13]  J Paysant,et al.  The effects of mirror therapy on pain and motor control of phantom limb in amputees: A systematic review. , 2016, Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[14]  Todd R. Johnson,et al.  A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[15]  A. Sirigu,et al.  Illusory movements of the paralyzed limb restore motor cortex activity , 2003, NeuroImage.

[16]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[17]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[18]  M. Devor,et al.  Peripheral nervous system origin of phantom limb pain , 2014, PAIN®.

[19]  Mary Galea,et al.  Telerehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[20]  Joseph Finkelstein,et al.  Home-based physical telerehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  Richard Barker,et al.  CASE method fast-track - a RAD approach , 1994 .

[22]  S. Mawson,et al.  Telerehabilitation: enabling the remote delivery of healthcare, rehabilitation, and self management. , 2009, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[23]  H. Ehrsson,et al.  An Alternative to Traditional Mirror Therapy: Illusory Touch Can Reduce Phantom Pain When Illusory Movement Does Not , 2013, The Clinical journal of pain.

[24]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[25]  Catherine Mercier,et al.  Training With Virtual Visual Feedback to Alleviate Phantom Limb Pain , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[26]  Michel Tousignant,et al.  The Patient’s Perspective of in-Home Telerehabilitation Physiotherapy Services Following Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2013, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[27]  H. Flor,et al.  Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[28]  R. H. I. '. Huis In 't Veld,et al.  Relation between patient satisfaction, compliance and the clinical benefit of a teletreatment application for chronic pain , 2010, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[29]  Tom H. F. Broens,et al.  Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study , 2007, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[30]  Frank Moisiadis,et al.  The fundamentals of prioritising requirements , 2002 .

[31]  T. Nurmikko,et al.  Phantom limb pain, cortical reorganization and the therapeutic effect of mental imagery , 2008, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  Åsa Holmner,et al.  Telehealthcare in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis on physical outcomes and dyspnea. , 2015, Respiratory medicine.

[33]  Andrea Turolla,et al.  Telerehabilitation and recovery of motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[34]  M. Kraemer,et al.  The PACT trial: PAtient Centered Telerehabilitation: effectiveness of software-supported and traditional mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain following lower limb amputation: protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. , 2015, Journal of physiotherapy.

[35]  Marjo Kauppinen,et al.  Requirements Prioritization Challenges in Practice , 2004, PROFES.

[36]  P. Lehoux,et al.  A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation.

[37]  Amiram Gafni,et al.  Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Mobile Health Technologies for Managing Chronic Conditions in Older Adults: A Scoping Review , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[38]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic Evaluation of Prototypes (individual) , 2022 .

[39]  S. Miyauchi,et al.  Mirror visual feedback alleviates deafferentation pain, depending on qualitative aspects of the pain: a preliminary report. , 2008, Rheumatology.

[40]  A. Stockselius,et al.  Phantom motor execution facilitated by machine learning and augmented reality as treatment for phantom limb pain: a single group, clinical trial in patients with chronic intractable phantom limb pain , 2016, The Lancet.

[41]  B. Darnall,et al.  Home-based self-delivered mirror therapy for phantom pain: a pilot study. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[42]  Martin C. Maguire,et al.  Methods to support human-centred design , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[43]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[44]  Annie J. Hill,et al.  Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Clinical rehabilitation.

[45]  H. Hermens,et al.  A scenario guideline for designing new teletreatments: a multidisciplinary approach , 2010, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[46]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[47]  Derick T Wade,et al.  The clinical aspects of mirror therapy in rehabilitation: a systematic review of the literature , 2011, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[48]  Elizabeth Murray,et al.  From theory to 'measurement' in complex interventions: Methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[49]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Chronic Pain Associated with Upper-Limb Loss , 2009, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.