Table 5 Qualitative themes from the content analysis
Theme | Associated categories | Percent | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
\(G_P\) | \(G_U\) | Total | ||
OE1: Daily-life activities that would benefit from an improved gait performance | ||||
“Both indoors and outdoors ambulation”, “Playing with friends”, “Going to school”, “Adjusting to changing circumstances outside”, “Keep friends’ velocity during walking”, “To walk normally over all kind of terrains”, “To be independent for social activities” | ||||
General mobility | Walking, stairs, running, jumping | 70.7% | 62.1% | 68.5% |
Leisure | Play, sports | 45.1% | 24.1% | 39.6% |
School | Mobility at school | 35.4% | 20.7% | 31.5% |
Equal social interaction | Keep up with able bodied peers | 25.6% | 6.9% | 20.7% |
Non-standard. terrains | Parks, playgrounds, nature | 19.5% | 17.2% | 18.9% |
Home | Mobility between and inside home rooms | 18.3% | 10.3% | 16.2% |
Other | – | 2.4% | 0.0% | 1.8% |
OE2: Limitations of powered exoskeletons for daily-life use | ||||
“They are quite big and bulky”, “They should be easier of putting on/taking off”, “Adaptability and ajustability”, “Affordable cost and accessibility”, “More compact”, “More functionality aimed for the wishes of the individual”, “Batteries” | ||||
Bulkiness | Weight, volume | 45.0% | 47.1% | 45.5% |
User friendliness | Ease of use | 41.7% | 29.4% | 39.0% |
Cost | Purchase and reparation costs | 33.3% | 17.6% | 29.9% |
Control | Control requirements and manipulation | 31.7% | 17.6% | 28.6% |
Adaptability | Patient’s needs, environment | 23.3% | 11.8% | 20.8% |
Availability | Getting access to its use | 11.7% | 11.8% | 11.7% |
Flexibility and ROM | Possibility of movements, compliance | 6.7% | 11.8% | 7.8% |
Acceptance | Approval by end-user | 8.3% | 0.0% | 6.5% |
Durability | Lifetime | 6.7% | 0.0% | 5.2% |
Other | – | 8.3% | 11.8% | 9.1% |
OE3: Limitations of passive AFOs for daily-life use | ||||
“AFOs impede activities like climbing stairs or jumping”, “Adjustment to foot size and breathability”, “Don’t properly support push-off”, “Different support depending on the patient’s needs”, “Cost and comfort”, “They are too rigid and uncomfortable” | ||||
Adaptability | Patient’s needs, Environment | 55.7% | 36.4% | 51.1% |
Flexibility and ROM | Possibility of movements, compliance | 31.4% | 22.7% | 29.3% |
Comfort | Avoid pressure, friction, abrasions | 21.4% | 50.0% | 28.3% |
Bulkiness | Wearability, weight, volume | 12.9% | 31.8% | 17.4% |
Energy cost | – | 20.0% | 0.0% | 15.2% |
Metrics | Possibility of assessment while wearing | 11.4% | 4.5% | 9.8% |
User friendliness | Ease of use | 10.0% | 9.1% | 9.8% |
Cost | Purchase and reparation costs | 7.1% | 13.6% | 8.7% |
Durability | Lifetime | 7.1% | 4.5% | 6.5% |
Walking | Walking normal, functional | 4.3% | 9.1% | 5.4% |
Other | – | 10.0% | 13.6% | 10.9% |