Usability and Performance Evaluation of a Locally Developed Counterbalance Arm Sling for Hemiparesis Rehabilitation

Authors

Ruzy Haryati Binti Hambali

Faculty of Industrial & Manufacturing Technology & Engineering, University Technical Malaysia Melaka, 76100, Durian Tunggal, Melaka (Malaysia)

Nur Nabilah Binti Mohamad Khairon

Faculty of Industrial & Manufacturing Technology & Engineering, University Technical Malaysia Melaka, 76100, Durian Tunggal, Melaka (Malaysia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100365

Subject Category: Engineering & Technology

Volume/Issue: 9/11 | Page No: 4663-4669

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2025-11-13

Accepted: 2025-12-20

Published: 2025-12-11

Abstract

This study reports the usability and performance evaluation of a mobile, detachable counterbalance arm sling (CBAS) designed to support upper-limb rehabilitation for people with hemiparesis. The device targets key clinical goals of shoulder stabilization, range-of-motion (ROM) support, and reduced therapist burden while remaining low-cost and locally manufacturable. A structured evaluation at a rehabilitation center engaged physiotherapists and a stroke survivor, using a three-part instrument including product rating, performance scale, and recommendation or comments. Respondents rated the CBAS from good to very good across eight usability criteria contains the ease of use, comfort, style, lightweight, functionality, ROM improvement, safety, ergonomics. 25% of the respondents rated performance superior and the remainder acceptable, with 100% recommending continued use. Findings align with contemporary evidence that weight-supporting/mobile arm support can foster arm activity and functional training in hemiparesis, and that usability-first design is crucial for adoption and adherence in real-world rehab. The CBAS demonstrates clinical promise and a path to scalable local production.

Keywords

hemiparesis, arm support, counterbalance sling, usability, rehabilitation engineering.

Downloads

References

1. Pollock, G. Bailey, and C. Langhorne, “Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke,” Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., vol. 10, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. S. Balasubramanian, J. Burdet, and E. Reinkensmeyer, “Robotic assistive technologies for upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke,” J. NeuroEng. Rehabil., vol. 12, pp. 1–17, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. S. Rahman and N. Siahaan, “User-centred design approach in rehabilitation technology,” Bioengineering, vol. 6, no. 3, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. K. Y. Lee et al., “Ergonomic design framework for upper-limb exoskeletons,” Appl. Ergonomics, vol. 85, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. M. J. Johnson et al., “Usability evaluation of assistive devices for motor rehabilitation,” IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1781–1790, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. S. Jeong and C. Kim, “Early-stage usability testing for rehabilitation devices,” Healthcare, vol. 9, no. 7, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. L. Resnik, R. A. Baxter, and J. Klinger, “Clinical usability of upper-limb prosthetic devices,” Prosthet. Orthot. Int., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. H. van der Loos and C. Reinkensmeyer, “Rehabilitation robotics and assistive exoskeletons,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 87, pp. 1–12, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. L. Zhang et al., “Lightweight assistive arm exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 19, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. R. Mahmood, “Development of low-cost rehabilitation devices for developing countries,” J. Med. Devices, vol. 13, no. 2, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. N. K. P. Rahim, “Mechanical analysis of counterbalance sling mechanisms,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2296, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. G. Coenen, L. Jonkers, and D. T. Claeys, “User acceptance of robotic rehabilitation systems,” Front. Rehab. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 1–9, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. F. Saleh, M. Shafie, and Z. Abdul Rahman, “Passive assistive training devices for stroke rehabilitation: Design and evaluation,” Technologies, vol. 11, no. 1, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. P. Nordin and T. Hassan, “Comparative mechanical assessment of rehabilitation arm supports,” BioMed Eng. Online, vol. 17, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. D. Chen, Y. Li, and H. Xie, “Integration of EMG sensing for adaptive rehabilitation,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 58739–58749, 2023. A. Page Layout [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles