MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390448665 · doi:10.2196/44025

Using Virtual Reality in a Rehabilitation Program for Patients With Breast Cancer: Phenomenological Study

2023· article· en· W4390448665 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shih-Chung Wu, Chia-Wen Chuang, Wen‐Chun Liao, Chung-Fang Li, Hsin-Hsin Shih

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintRehabilitationBreast cancerInterpretative phenomenological analysisPhenomenological methodVirtual realityPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychotherapistQualitative researchCancerHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Surgery is an essential treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, various side effects of breast cancer surgery, such as arm dysfunction and lymphedema, remain causes for concern. Rehabilitation exercises to prevent such side effects should be initiated within 24 hours after surgery. Virtual reality (VR) can assist the process of rehabilitation; however, the feasibility of applying VR for rehabilitation must be explored, in addition to experiences of this application. Objective: This study explored patients' attitudes toward and experiences of using VR for their rehabilitation to determine the feasibility of such VR use and to identify potential barriers. Methods: A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted from September to December 2021. A total of 18 patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgical treatment were interviewed using open-ended questions. The Colaizzi 7-step procedure for phenomenological analysis was used for data analysis. To ensure high study reliability, this study followed previously reported quality criteria for trustworthiness. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) VR was powerful in facilitating rehabilitation, (2) early and repetitive upper limb movements were an advantage of VR rehabilitation, and (3) extensive VR use had challenges to be overcome. Most of the interviewed patients reported positive experiences of using VR for rehabilitation. Specifically, VR helped these patients identify appropriate motion and angle limits while exercising; in other words, knowledge gained through VR can play a key role in the rehabilitation process. In addition, the patients reported that the use of VR provided them company, similar to when a physiotherapist is present. Finally, the gamified nature of the VR system seemed to make VR-based rehabilitation more engaging than traditional rehabilitation, particularly with respect to early rehabilitation; however, the high cost of VR equipment made VR-based rehabilitation difficult to implement at home. Conclusions: The interviewed patients with breast cancer had positive experiences in using VR for rehabilitation. The high cost of both VR equipment and software development presents a challenge for applying VR-based rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207