A video-game group intervention: Experiences and perceptions of adults with chronic stroke and their therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ongoing physical activity is important for maintaining the functional level of individuals with chronic stroke. Video games in a group setting might be a cost-effective way for providing mobility and preventing physical inactivity. PURPOSE: This study explores the experiences and perceptions of individuals with chronic stroke who participated in a novel community-based video-game group intervention and their therapists. METHOD: A qualitative study, nested in a randomized controlled trial, was conducted using semistructured interviews with eight individuals with chronic stroke (four men and four women) ages 29 to 69 and a focus group of their three occupational therapists, following a video-game intervention. Data were analyzed using content analysis. FINDINGS: Three main categories were identified by the study participants: (a) using video games, (b) the group/team experience, and (c) intervention outcomes/evolving understandings following the intervention. IMPLICATIONS: Playing video games was perceived not as treatment but as a motivating tool to facilitate whole-body movement. Therefore, this intervention might be suitable to be used in the community for ongoing intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".