Design Considerations for an Exergame-Based Training Intervention for Older Adults With Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: Qualitative Study Including Focus Groups With Experts and Health Care Professionals and Individual Semistructured In-depth Patient Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exergames have attracted growing interest in the prevention and treatment of neurocognitive disorders. The most effective exergame and training components (ie, exercise and training variables such as frequency, intensity, duration, or volume of training and type and content of specific exergame scenarios) however remain to be established for older adults with mild neurocognitive disorders (mNCDs). Regarding the design and development of novel exergame-based training concepts, it seems of crucial importance to explicitly include the intended users' perspective by adopting an interactive and participatory design that includes end users throughout different iterative cycles of development. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the capabilities, treatment preferences, and motivators for the training of older adults with mNCD and the perspectives of individuals on training goals and settings and requirements for exergame and training components. METHODS: A qualitative study including expert focus groups and individual semistructured in-depth patient interviews was conducted. Data were transcribed to a written format to perform qualitative content analysis using QCAmap software. RESULTS: In total, 10 experts and health care professionals (80% females) and 8 older adults with mNCD (38% females; mean age 82.4, SD 6.2 years) were recruited until data saturation was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial consequences of patients' self-perceived cognitive deterioration might be more burdensome than the cognitive changes themselves. Older adults with mNCD prefer integrative forms of training (such as exergaming) and are primarily motivated by enjoyment or fun in exercising and the effectiveness of the training. Putting the synthesized perspectives of training goals, settings, and requirements for exergames and training components into context, our considerations point to opportunities for improvement in research and rehabilitation, either by adapting existing exergames to patients with mNCDs or by developing novel exergames and exergame-based training concepts specifically tailored to meet patient requirements and needs.
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".