MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748556741 · doi:10.1089/g4h.2016.0089

Virtual Reality and Active Videogame-Based Practice, Learning Needs, and Preferences: A Cross-Canada Survey of Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists

2017· article· en· W2748556741 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danielle Levac, Stephanie Glegg, Heather Colquhoun, Patricia A. Miller, Farzad Noubary

Bibliographic record

VenueGames for Health Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunny Hill Health Centre for ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityKnowledge translationRehabilitationCerebral palsyComputer-assisted web interviewingPsychologyOccupational therapyMedicinePhysical therapyClinical Practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Describe the clinical use of virtual reality (VR)/active videogaming (AVG) by physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) in Canada, identify usage barriers and facilitators, evaluate factors that predict intention to use VR/AVGs, and determine therapists' learning needs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online survey of therapists in Canada who were members of 1 of 26 professional PT or OT colleges or associations using the Assessing Determinants Of Prospective Take-up of Virtual Reality (ADOPT-VR2) Instrument. RESULTS: We received 1071 (506 PTs, 562 OTs, 3 dual-trained) responses. Forty-six percent had clinical VR/AVG experience; only 12% reported current use, with the Wii being the most clinically accessible (41%) system. Therapists used VR/AVGs primarily in rehabilitation (32%) and hospital (29%) settings, preferentially targeting balance (39.3%) and physical activity (19.8%) outcomes. Stroke (25.8%), brain injury (15.3%), musculoskeletal (14.9%), and cerebral palsy (10.5%) populations were most frequently treated. Therapists with VR/AVG experience rated all ADOPT-VR2 constructs more highly than did those without experience (P < 0.001). Factors predictive of intention to use VR included the technology's perceived usefulness and therapist self-efficacy in VR/AVG use (P < 0.001). Highest-rated barriers to VR/AVG use were lack of funds, space, time, support staff, and appropriate clients, whereas facilitators included client motivation, therapist knowledge, and management support. Most (76%) respondents were interested in learning more. CONCLUSION: Understanding use, predictors of use, and learning needs is essential for developing knowledge translation initiatives to support clinical integration of VR/AVGs. Results of this first national survey will inform the creation of resources to support therapists in this field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGames for Health JournalSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207