Improving Home-Based Scoliosis Therapy: Findings From a Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conservative scoliosis therapy in the form of assisted physiotherapeutic scoliosis exercises is supplemented by self-contained training at home, depending on the approach (eg, Schroth, the Scientific Exercises Approach to Scoliosis). Complex exercises, lack of awareness of the importance of training, and missing supervision by therapists often lead to uncertainty and reduced motivation, which in turn reduces the success of home-based therapy. Increasing digitalization in the health care sector offers opportunities to close this gap. However, research is needed to analyze the requirements and translate the potential of digital tools into concrete solution concepts. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential for optimizing home-based scoliosis therapy in terms of motivation, assistive devices, and digital tools. METHODS: In collaboration with the Institute of Physiotherapy at the Jena University Hospital, a survey was initiated to address patients with scoliosis and physical therapists. A digital questionnaire was created for each target group and distributed via physiotherapies, scoliosis forums, the Bundesverband für Skoliose Selbsthilfe e. V. newsletter via a link, and a quick response code. The survey collected data on demographics, therapy, exercise habits, motivation, assistive devices, and digital tools. Descriptive statistics were used for evaluation. RESULTS: Of 141 survey participants, 72 (51.1%; n=62, 86.1%, female; n=10, 13.9%, male) patients with scoliosis with an average age of 40 (SD 17.08) years and 30 scoliosis therapists completed the respective questionnaires. The analysis of home-based therapy showed that patients with scoliosis exercise less per week (2 times or less; 45/72, 62.5%) than they are recommended to do by therapists (at least 3 times; 53/72, 73.6%). Patients indicated that their motivation could be increased by practicing together with friends and acquaintances (54/72, 75%), a supporting therapy device (48/72, 66.7%), or a digital profile (46/72, 63.9%). The most important assistive devices, which are comparatively rarely used in home-based therapy, included balance boards (20/72, 27.8%), wall bars (23/72, 31.9%), mirrors (36/72, 50%), and long bars (40/72, 55.6%). Therapists saw the greatest benefit of digital tools for scoliosis therapy in increasing motivation (26/30, 87%), improving home therapy (25/30, 83%), monitoring therapy progress (25/30, 83%), and demonstrating exercise instructions (24/30, 80%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we investigated whether there is any potential for improvement in home-based scoliosis therapy. For this purpose, using online questionnaires, we asked patients with scoliosis and therapists questions about the following topics: exercise habits, outpatient and home-based therapy, motivation, supportive devices, and digital tools. The results showed that a lack of motivation, suitable training equipment, and tools for self-control leads to a low training workload. From the perspective of the patients surveyed, this problem can be addressed through community training with friends or acquaintances, a supportive therapy device, and digital elements, such as apps, with training instructions and user profiles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".