Healthcare providers and researchers are increasingly adopting technology-based rehabilitation interventions to assist patients with disabilities. These complex interventions include therapeutic tools and service delivery platforms tailored to individual needs. However, the unique properties of technology, such as usability and technical reliability, often lack specific evaluation guidance in traditional clinical research. To address this gap, Shore et al. recently proposed a specialized framework for conducting comprehensive feasibility studies in this context.

Why Feasibility Matters for Technology-Based Rehabilitation Interventions

Feasibility studies serve as a critical bridge between early development and full-scale clinical trials. Unlike pilot studies, which typically function as small-scale rehearsals of larger trials, feasibility studies focus on refining the intervention itself. By addressing key development questions early, researchers can prevent wasted resources. Furthermore, they can significantly improve the real-world impact of assistive technologies. Specifically, this approach encourages iterative refinement based on user feedback and technical performance.

The 13 Dimensions of Feasibility

Integrating previous research, Shore et al. presented 13 distinct feasibility dimensions relevant to technology-based rehabilitation interventions. These dimensions focus on the intervention's performance rather than just study management. For example, usability and technical stability are paramount when deploying digital tools in diverse settings. Additionally, factors like safety, cost, and provider requirements must be explicitly outlined. Consequently, these criteria help developers ensure that an intervention meets the unique needs of its specific user base before proceeding to efficacy testing.

Distinguishing Feasibility from Pilot Studies

A major contribution of this framework is the clear distinction between feasibility and pilot studies. Feasibility studies focus on answering development questions and refining the intervention. In contrast, pilot studies are small versions of a larger trial designed to evaluate outcomes. Notably, this terminology harmonization helps researchers communicate more effectively. Similarly, it allows the clinical community to interpret and compare results across different studies more accurately.

FAQs on Rehabilitation Technology Evaluation

What is the primary goal of a feasibility study in this field?

The primary goal is to iteratively refine the intervention by addressing development questions like usability and technical reliability before conducting larger clinical trials.

How do technology-based interventions differ from traditional rehab?

They are considered more complex because they require specific digital skills from providers and recipients. Moreover, they often involve a high degree of individual tailoring and varied use settings.

Why are specific feasibility dimensions needed for technology?

Traditional frameworks often overlook critical technical properties. Specialized dimensions ensure that researchers evaluate the stability, safety, and user-centered design of the technology itself.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice or a substitute for professional clinical judgment. Refer to the latest local and national guidelines for clinical practice.

References

1. Shore J et al. Evaluating the Feasibility of Technology-Based Interventions in Disability and Rehabilitation: Definitions, Considerations, and Dimensions. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2026 Apr 14. doi: 10.2196/79026. PMID: 41980239.


2. Eldridge SM et al. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150205.


3. Thabane L et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):1.