A Home-Based Exercise Program With Active Video Games for Balance, Motor Proficiency, Foot and Ankle Ability, and Intrinsic Motivation in Children With Chronic Ankle Instability: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with chronic ankle instability (CAI) frequently experience ankle unsteadiness, causing trips, falls, and ankle sprain injuries resulting in poor quality of life. A specific exercise program focused on physical and psychological purposes in children with CAI is needed. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a 4-week home-based exercise training program using active video games (AVGs) for balance, motor proficiency, foot and ankle ability, and intrinsic motivation in children with CAI. Methods: Sixty children with CAI (mean age 10, SD 2 years) were randomly assigned to an experimental group (AVG group; n=30) or a control group (CG; n=30). The AVG group played 2 selected video games, Catching Fish and Russian Block, while the CG received the traditional exercise program for CAI. Both programs were scheduled for 30 minutes per day, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks at home. The single-leg stance test was used to assess static balance. The walking forward on a line and standing long jump tests were used to assess motor proficiency. The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire were used to assess foot and ankle ability and intrinsic motivation, respectively. Assessments were conducted at baseline and after 4 weeks. Results: In the AVG group, the single-leg stand test (eyes open; on floor and on foam conditions), the FAAM (activities of daily living subscale), and intrinsic motivation (interest/enjoyment, pressure/tension, and value/usefulness dimensions) were improved compared with the CG (all P<.05). Motor proficiency did not differ between the 2 groups at the end of the 4-week program (P=.31 for the walking forward on a line, P=.34 for the standing long jump test). Conclusions: A 4-week home-based exercise training program using AVGs can be beneficial and may be an effective approach for improving balance, foot and ankle ability, and enhancing positive motivation by increasing the interest/enjoyment and value/usefulness dimensions and lowering the pressure/tension dimension in children with CAI that require long-term rehabilitation sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".