Saskia Baltrusch

36 Chapter 2 One movement therapist emphasized: “It really depends on the sector […] Is it feasible for rehabilitation? Then I don’t think so […] in rehabilitation there are so many other factors that play a role than just purely physical […] but is it feasible for vocational rehabilitation, if you implement it as an assistive device, then I think it is […]” (Bram, Movement Therapist) The psychologist agreed on the implementation of the device in the work environment: “We currently have someone in the training who is working in construction […] he has to stand in flexion almost the whole day. So this [the device] would be a nice assistance.“ (Myrthe, Psychologist) Patients considered wearing the device during their normal life to overcome their limitations, provided that it meets the requirements they discussed during the focus groups. “If it completely meets all the requirements, then I think I would put it on in the morning and take it off in the evening.” (Kai, P) 4 Discussion This focus group study was a first step in a patient-centred design approach for a novel trunk exoskeleton. We explored potential end-user’s perceptions of an exoskeleton to identify criteria to be considered at the start of the design process. Specifically, we investigated healthcare professionals’ and patients’ perspectives on the idea of using an assistive device to deal with low-back pain patients’ main limitations. Main concerns from the patient’s perspective were loss of muscle strength as a long-term effect of using an assistive device, and overloading of the low back when taking it off after a long period of use. Previous research on different devices, supporting the trunk, has shown that back muscle activity decreased between 10% to 40% during lifting and up to 10% to 60% during static forward