Factors Influencing Therapists' Adoption of Virtual Reality for Brain Injury Rehabilitation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is an important emerging technology that is increasingly being introduced in health centers as a rehabilitation intervention. Quantitative research is needed to identify the factors influencing therapists' adoption of VR for brain injury rehabilitation, including barriers and facilitators to VR use, in order to inform successful implementation strategies. A measure based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB) was developed and administered to 42 therapists; early psychometric properties are reported. Mean or median composite scores and correlations were calculated for each DTPB construct. Overall, therapists had positive attitudes toward VR, perceived it as being useful, and had positive intentions to use it more in the future. The self-efficacy composite yielded the lowest scores. The most significant barrier to adoption was time, while social influences and knowledge were the primary facilitators. Future research will explore the impact of knowledge translation interventions on these mediators of VR adoption.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it