The Utility of a Video Game System in Rehabilitation of Burn and Nonburn Patients: A Survey Among Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate perceptions of occupational therapists and physiotherapists on the use of Nintendo Wii™ (Nintendo of America Inc., Redmond, WA) in rehabilitation. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists in a rehabilitation hospital trialed four Wii games that addressed physical movement, balance, coordination, and cognitive performance. Then, they completed an opinion survey on the utility of Wii in rehabilitation. The results were compared between burn care therapists (BTs) and nonburn care therapists, using chi(2) with a P < .05 considered significant. The participation rate was 79% (63/80), and they agreed that Wii was easy to set up (71%), operate (68%), and safe to use (76%). Participants agreed that Wii would be beneficial in outpatient (76%) and inpatient (65%) settings and that it could improve treatment compliance (73%). Participants recommended 15 to 30-minute Wii intervention (59%) daily (81%) and twice per week (43%). Participants believed that neurologic (71%), trauma (68%), burn (59%), and musculoskeletal (49%) patients would benefit from Wii intervention but not cardiac (43%) or organ transplant patients (18%). Participants believed that outcomes using Wii could be measured reliably (49%), and skills learned while playing could be transferable to daily function (60%). The significant differences between BTs and nonburn care therapists' perceptions are that BT-treated younger patients (21-40 years vs >60 years, P < .05) and BT favored the therapeutic benefit of Wii in rehabilitation (93% vs 58%, P = .02), specifically in burn rehabilitation (85% vs 39%, P = .001). Occupational therapists and physiotherapists favored the use of Wii in rehabilitation as an adjunct to traditional therapy because it is therapeutic, engaging, and may increase patient participation in rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".