Ablefit: Development of an Advanced System for Rehabilitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Emphasis is given, in the study (in the abstract, introduction and conclusion), to Gamification - it is one of the future advantages over other pre-existing devices. However, it was not described or tested in the study. It is not clear how elderly people who face situations of immobility will obtain benefits through gamification... If it is to motivate family caregivers, it could even be dangerous for the elderly. It is advised that this matter either be developed in the study or be withdrawn at this stage as it has not been tested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have taken them into consideration and have made the necessary changes.

Please find attached the requested table with our responses.

Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

To the authors,

We congratulate the authors for developing a new device for bedridden patients with a gamification module, which includes real-time biofeedback for its relevance and timeliness in a progressively aging population. The introduction sufficiently frames the topic and presents the most recent evidence. Information on previously identified problems that underlie this device’s development is unclear. We ask the authors to establish the originality of this study, namely the features that distinguish Ablefit from other devices developed so far and that are being tested in this research. 

 

Regarding materials and methods, in the framework, the authors state, in lines 60/61, that "The development of new devices implies contrasting their features with experts' theoretical and practical knowledge.” The materials and methods state that the participants (Professionals) who will handle and evaluate the device's functionality must meet as inclusion criteria two or more years of professional experience and a minimum of a degree. Were these participants considered experts? If so, on what grounds? Please provide references in line 105 (Class IIa Mds and CIass I) and line 32 (Bardin´s inductive approach). Was the usability questionnaire (line 114) developed solely for this research or based on a previously developed questionnaire? Provide scoring features.

In the results, please correct in line 214 the figure number. 

The conclusions should objectively answer the study's aim and state the implications for clinical practice. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have taken them into consideration and have made the necessary changes.

Please find attached the requested table with our responses.

Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

This study examines whether patients bedridden by prolonged immobility can recover with the aid of a new device for rehabilitation.

This manuscript is interesting but I need you to answer some questions:

 

INTRODUCTION

The introduction is very short. I recommend including epidemiological information on addictions, perceived stress and/or job satisfaction.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

-          A " pre-clinical study with a user-centred" is not a valid design. Specify what type of study has been carried out (observational, experimental, longitudinal, cross-sectional...).

2.1. Participants

-          I don't quite understand the description of the participants in group 1. The authors should better specify the criteria for choosing them. If the tool has been developed new, who has instructed these participants, and is it possible to know if they have used it correctly? Which professional supervised the use of the tool (physician, physiotherapist, nurse)?

-          Couldn't the age difference between the groups be a problem? The professionals look like much younger people than the participants in group 2. The authors should justify their answer.

 

2.3.2. End-Users

-        You say that the device measures weight and height but it is used in bed. How is this possible?

 

DISCUSSION

4.4. Limitations

-        The sample is very small.

-        No statistical analysis comparing means before and after the intervention has been done.

 

CONCLUSIONS

The information here is redundant. It does not make sense to put the research objective. In the conclusions you should give a message about the research carried out.

5.1. Future Directions

The future develops from significant results. In this study there are no. The authors should better justify this section.

 

REFERENCES

The authors have used few references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have taken them into consideration and have made the necessary changes.

Please find attached the requested table with our responses.

Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your answer. I consider that my comments have been duly answered and argued.

Good job, congratulations.