Search results

Restoration of walking ability is a key goal to both stroke survivors and their therapists. However, the intensity and duration of rehabilitation available after stroke can be limited by service constraints, despite the potential for improvement which could reduce health service demands in the long run. The purpose of this paper is to present qualitative findings from a study that explored the acceptability of a haptic device aimed at improving walking as part of an extended intervention in stroke rehabilitation.

Pre-trial focus groups and post-trial interviews to assess the acceptability of Haptic Bracelets were undertaken with seven stroke survivors.

Five themes were identified as impacting on the acceptability of the Haptic Bracelet: potential for improving quality of life; relationships with technology; important features; concerns; response to trial and concentration. Participants were interested in the haptic bracelet and hoped it would provide them with more confidence making them: feel safer when walking; have greater ability to take bigger strides rather than little steps; a way to combat mistakes participants reported making due to tiredness and reduced pain in knees and hips.

Haptic Bracelets are an innovative development in the field of rhythmic cueing and stroke rehabilitation. The haptic bracelets also overcome problems encountered with established audio-based cueing, as their use is not affected by external environmental noise.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon 10.1108/JET-01-2021-0003

By these we mean the parliamentary counsel responsible for drafting the many statutes and statutory instruments of every kind, against whom there has been much criticism in recent years for the mass of indigestible legislation, a little of it almost incomprehensible, inflicted on society generally. What prompts us to return to the subject, after so recently castigating it as “hurry scurry” law, is the Labelling of Food Regulations, 1970. Not that this particular measure is anything but good, but looking at it, one cannot help wondering what was the purpose of the 1967 Regulations; a useless exercise in law‐making, since they will never come into force, being precipitately revoked by the new ones. Nor does it seem to have been hurried legislation, since it followed the reports of the Food Standards Committee after a lapse of several years. However, instances in which measures have been rushed through the legislative process, to prove subsequently inadequate, perhaps unworkable in parts, and sometimes completely disastrous, are multiplying during the life of the last Parliament. This may not always be the fault of the ligislature, for sometimes a new problem emerges or grows so rapidly that the law cannot keep up with it; then there is excuse for measures being rushed through to cope.