[OES-1-6] Effects of a 3D printing technology learning program in rehabilitation professionals: a randomized control trial
Introduction
It is expected that 3D printing technology could help rehabilitation professionals to provide clients with order-made assistive devices. However, most of them have not learned how to use 3D printing technology for their clinical practice, and therefore, it is important to provide rehabilitation professionals with an appropriate opportunity to learn how to use 3D printing technology. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 3D printing technology learning program in rehabilitation professionals.
Methods
This study adopted a randomized controlled trial design. Participants were recruited from a hospital. Eligible participants were physical, occupational or speech-language therapists who have not experienced any 3D printing technology. Twenty-seven participants were randomized to the control group (n = 14) or the intervention group (n = 13). The learning program was conducted for eight weeks in accordance with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Morris TH, 2020). The outcome was measured using the Japanese version of the modified Technology Acceptance Model questionnaire (TAM-J). It consists of 13 items with four sub-scales; 1) Perception of usefulness (28 points total), 2) Perception of ease of use (35 points total), 3) Attitude toward use (14 points total) and 4) Intention to use (14 points total). The total score is 91, and a high score indicates high acceptance of 3D printing technology. Within-group analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the TAM-J between different time points. In addition, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the outcome measure between the two groups. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University.
Results
The median ages of control and intervention participants were 32.0 (IQR 26.0-37.0) years with 6 males and 8 females, and 34.0 (IQR 28.0-35.0) years with 6 males and 7 females, respectively. The median lengths of job experience were 9.5 (IQR 3.0-12.0) and 8.0 (IQR 6.0-11.0) years, respectively. In the within-group analyses, the intervention group showed a significant improvement only in 2) Perception of ease of use (p = 0.012). Contrarily, the control group showed a significant decrease in 1) Perception of usefulness (p = 0.027). Intergroup comparisons showed that the intervention group gained an improvement in 2) Perception of ease of use (p = 0.027).
Discussion
We found an additional improvement in 2) Perception of ease of use in the intervention group compared to the control group, suggesting that the intervention group recognized 3D printing technology as an easy and understandable technique for rehabilitation services through the program. However, contrary to our expectations, there was no difference in the other sub-scales. It was implied that further studies including continuous follow-up needs to be considered to clarify the long-term effects of the 3D printing technology learning program.
It is expected that 3D printing technology could help rehabilitation professionals to provide clients with order-made assistive devices. However, most of them have not learned how to use 3D printing technology for their clinical practice, and therefore, it is important to provide rehabilitation professionals with an appropriate opportunity to learn how to use 3D printing technology. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 3D printing technology learning program in rehabilitation professionals.
Methods
This study adopted a randomized controlled trial design. Participants were recruited from a hospital. Eligible participants were physical, occupational or speech-language therapists who have not experienced any 3D printing technology. Twenty-seven participants were randomized to the control group (n = 14) or the intervention group (n = 13). The learning program was conducted for eight weeks in accordance with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Morris TH, 2020). The outcome was measured using the Japanese version of the modified Technology Acceptance Model questionnaire (TAM-J). It consists of 13 items with four sub-scales; 1) Perception of usefulness (28 points total), 2) Perception of ease of use (35 points total), 3) Attitude toward use (14 points total) and 4) Intention to use (14 points total). The total score is 91, and a high score indicates high acceptance of 3D printing technology. Within-group analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the TAM-J between different time points. In addition, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the outcome measure between the two groups. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University.
Results
The median ages of control and intervention participants were 32.0 (IQR 26.0-37.0) years with 6 males and 8 females, and 34.0 (IQR 28.0-35.0) years with 6 males and 7 females, respectively. The median lengths of job experience were 9.5 (IQR 3.0-12.0) and 8.0 (IQR 6.0-11.0) years, respectively. In the within-group analyses, the intervention group showed a significant improvement only in 2) Perception of ease of use (p = 0.012). Contrarily, the control group showed a significant decrease in 1) Perception of usefulness (p = 0.027). Intergroup comparisons showed that the intervention group gained an improvement in 2) Perception of ease of use (p = 0.027).
Discussion
We found an additional improvement in 2) Perception of ease of use in the intervention group compared to the control group, suggesting that the intervention group recognized 3D printing technology as an easy and understandable technique for rehabilitation services through the program. However, contrary to our expectations, there was no difference in the other sub-scales. It was implied that further studies including continuous follow-up needs to be considered to clarify the long-term effects of the 3D printing technology learning program.