Here’s an article about some research that I thoroughly support…
https://www.gcu.ac.uk/aboutgcu/universitynews/rehabilitation-experts-receive-funding-for-project-aimed-at-boosting-recovery-for-stroke-survivors
But
I also think it lacks vision.
It takes a current paradigm and current assumptions and asks how can technology support what we currently do on the basis of what we have historically believed.
I challenge the historical beliefs such as “we know that exercise in the first 6 months is the most effective”.
I would hypothesize a more accurate description is/ might be “The first 6 months has traditionally been seen as period with the most the potential for recovery. In fact we don’t know how much of recovery in the first 6 months is a result of natural processes that will contribute to recovery anyway, How much different strokes affects limit individual’s ability to participate such as fatigue, whether there is any formation of habit that is beneficial for later regimes. We don’t know the degree to which therapists limited time can be substituted by peer support, We don’t know what other factors from peer support would contribute/ substitute/ delete, We don’t know what operational procedures have to be to optimise roles and responsibilities for emotional and physical well-being and efficacy of regimes for improvement…” Etc ad nauseum
I could bring challenge to most of the other statements too.
A new technology introduces the way to imagine paradigms that are alien to the capabilities of the past.
Most folk don’t have that imagination it requires neurodiversity.
New Technologies limit good application of known procedures as much as they enable but what they enable is often unimagined therefore substituting old ways into new clothing while it has some advantages to be welcomed It’s a way of thinking that reduces the speed with which an unimagined advantage can be bought to the fore.
So anything that you can think of in the hackneyed old phrase of thinking outside the box would be welcome 🙂
Caio
Simon