MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036507026 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234767

A biofeedback-enhanced therapeutic exercise video game intervention for young people with cerebral palsy: A randomized single-case experimental design feasibility study

2020· article· en· W3036507026 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander MacIntosh, Éric Desailly, Nicolas Vignais, Vincent Vigneron, Elaine Biddiss

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCampus FranceU.S. National Library of MedicineMitacs
KeywordsCerebral palsyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCoachingPsychological interventionVideo gameIntervention (counseling)BiofeedbackMedicinePsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMultimediaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE/BACKGROUND: Movement-controlled video games have potential to promote home-based practice of therapy activities. The success of therapy gaming interventions depends on the quality of the technology used and the presence of effective support structures. AIM: This study assesses the feasibility of a novel intervention that combines a co-created gaming technology integrating evidence-based biofeedback and solution-focused coaching (SFC) strategies to support therapy engagement and efficacy at home. METHODS: Following feasibility and single-case reporting standards (CONSORT and SCRIBE), this was a non-blind, randomized, multiple-baseline, AB, design. Nineteen (19) young people with cerebral palsy (8-18 years old) completed the 4-week home-based intervention in France and Canada. Participant motivations, personalized practice goals, and relevance of the intervention to daily activities were discussed in a Solution Focused Coaching-style conversation pre-, post-intervention and during weekly check-ins. Participants controlled a video game by completing therapeutic gestures (wrist extension, pinching) detected via electromyography and inertial sensors on the forearm (Myo Armband and custom software). Process feasibility success criteria for recruitment response, completion and adherence rates, and frequency of technical issues were established a priori. Scientific feasibility, effect size estimates and variance were determined for Body Function outcome measures: active wrist extension, grip strength and Box and Blocks Test; and for Activities and Participation measures: Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Self-Reported Experiences of Activity Settings (SEAS). RESULTS: Recruitment response (31%) and assessment completion (84%) rates were good and 74% of participants reached self-identified practice goals. As 17% of technical issues required external support to resolve, the intervention was graded as feasible with modifications. No adverse events were reported. Moderate effects were observed in Body Function measures (active wrist extension: SMD = 1.82, 95%CI = 0.85-2.78; Grip Strength: SMD = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.65-1.91; Box and Blocks: Hedge's g = 0.58, 95%CI = -0.11-1.27) and small-moderate effects in Activities and Participation measures (AHA: Hedge's g = 0.29, 95%CI = -0.39-0.97, COPM: r = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.13-0.82, SEAS: r = 0.24, 95%CI = -0.25-0.61). CONCLUSION: A definitive RCT to investigate the effectiveness of this novel intervention is warranted. Combining SFC-style coaching with high-quality biofeedback may positively engage youth in home rehabilitation to complement traditional therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of Medicine: NCT03677193.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations52
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207