Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
Motor Dual-Tasks for Gait Analysis and Evaluation in Post-Stroke Patients
Published on: March 11, 2021
Exploring person-centredness in technology-based gait rehabilitation after stroke: A scoping review framework
Júlio Belo Fernandes1,2, Diana Vareta1,2, Sónia Fernandes1,2
1Egas Moniz Center of Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health & Science, Almada, Portugal.
Background:
Technology-based gait rehabilitation after stroke is expanding, however the extent to which interventions embody person-centred care remains unclear.
Aims:
The objective of this review is to explore the extent to which technology-based interventions for gait rehabilitation in stroke survivors reflect the principles of person-centred practice.
Methods:
A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with the last search update on September 1, 2025. Data charting was aligned with the domains of the PCPF, enabling the identification of person-centredness indicators both explicitly stated in the texts and inferred from their context.
Results:
The search identified 1,460 records; after screening, 21 randomised controlled trials were included. Extracted data were mapped to PCPF domains to identify explicit and implicit indicators of person-centredness. Representation was variable: Prerequisites, Practice Environment, Person-Centred Processes, and Outcomes appeared across studies, while Macro Context was absent. Alignment was evident via practitioner expertise and responsive parameter adjustments (Prerequisites), specialised, well-resourced settings (Practice Environment), and personalised goal setting, real-time feedback, and preference-sensitive features (Processes). Regarding outcomes, all studies reported performance-based measures (motor performance); one included biomarker outcomes and two used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (quality of life). No Patient-Reported Experience Measures were reported.
Conclusion:
Technology-focused gait trials remain predominantly biomedical in framing and reporting. Future studies should embed and report explicit person-centred processes and broaden outcomes to include patient-reported experience measures.
