ExerG: adapting an exergame training solution to the needs of older adults using focus group and expert interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exergames are playful technology-based exercise programs. They train physical and cognitive functions to preserve independence in older adults (OAs) with disabilities in daily activities and may reduce their risk of falling. This study gathered in-depth knowledge and understanding of three different user groups' experiences in and relevant needs, worries, preferences, and expectations of technology-based training, to develop an exergame training device for OAs. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus group interviews of primary (OAs in geriatric or neurological rehabilitation) and secondary (health professionals) end users, as well as expert interviews of tertiary end users (health insurance experts or similar), exploring user perspectives on adjusting an existing exergame to OAs' needs. Voice-recorded interviews were transcribed by researchers and analyzed using thematic analysis (TA) following an inductive, data-driven, iterative approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 24 primary, 18 secondary, and 9 tertiary end users at two rehabilitation centers in Austria and Switzerland. Our TA approach identified five to six themes per user group. Themes in the primary end user group reflected aspects of safety, training goals, individuality, game environment, social interactions, and physical and technical overload. Themes in the secondary end user group comprised facets of meaningfulness, distraction through the game environment, safety, gamification elements, the availability and accessibility of the exergame. Tertiary end users' themes addressed aspects of financial reimbursement, suitable target populations, professional training for the handling of exergame devices, training goals, and concerns about the use of exergames in geriatric rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, an exergame for OAs must be safe, motivating and fully adaptable to the target group while promoting the return to or preservation of autonomy and independence in daily life. Our findings contribute to developing hard- and software extensions for the ExerG training device. Further research is needed to expand the validity of our findings to larger populations.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".