Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 8, 2026
Creation of a High-Fidelity, Low-Cost, Intraosseous Line Placement Task Trainer via 3D Printing
Published on: August 17, 2022
Early occupational therapy use of a 3D printer introduced with minimal formal support: a single-site pre-post
Yusuke Harada1, Yuki Sawada2, Hiroshi Momma1
1Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kyorin University, Mitaka, Japan.
Introduction:
Three-dimensional (3D) printers can produce customized assistive devices in occupational therapy; however, occupational therapists' perceptions and early usage following clinical introduction remain poorly understood. This study examined perceptions, perceived barriers and enabling conditions, and early usage patterns among occupational therapists following 3D printer introduction in a rehabilitation hospital with minimal formal implementation support.
Methods:
A 3D printer was installed in the occupational therapy department, allowing trial printing of existing design data after brief basic instruction was provided to one representative therapist; no structured staff training, CAD instruction, formal usage recommendations, workflow integration, or dedicated institutional support was provided. A self-administered study-specific, non-validated questionnaire assessed perceptions and selected implementation-related conditions before and six months after installation. Paired data from 43 participants (follow-up rate: 79.6%) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests.
Results:
After installation, selection of the barrier "there is no 3D printer in the workplace" significantly decreased (adjusted p < 0.001), whereas selection of institutional and operational constraints, including insufficient time (adjusted p < 0.001) and lack of medical reimbursement (adjusted p = 0.044), increased. Participants showed less agreement that using a 3D printer was difficult (adjusted p = 0.047), while agreement that 3D printing was useful in occupational therapy practice also decreased (adjusted p = 0.044). Although statistically significant, these changes were small in magnitude. No statistically significant change was observed in future intention to use 3D printing (adjusted p = 0.063). Available printer records did not permit quantitative assessment of individual use; use remained limited to exploratory printing of existing designs.
Discussion:
The introduction of a printer with minimal formal support was not accompanied by clear progression toward routine clinical use during the six-month observation period. These exploratory findings support further evaluation of structured education, technical assistance, workflow integration, and institutional arrangements, but do not establish their effectiveness or the causal effect of printer availability.
