MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402694016 · doi:10.3389/fmedt.2024.1381165

Using interactive computer play in physical therapy and occupational therapy clinical practice: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study

2024· article· en· W4402694016 on OpenAlexafffund
Marina Petrevska, Jennifer Ryan, Selvi Sert, Sarah Munce, F. Virginia Wright, Elaine Biddiss

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medical Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersAzrieli FoundationBloorview Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsThematic analysisOccupational therapyContext (archaeology)Cerebral palsyObservational studyIntervention (counseling)MedicineMotor learningPerceptionSession (web analytics)PsychologyQualitative propertyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationQualitative researchPhysical therapyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study explored the extent to which an interactive computer play system, Bootle Blast, supports motor learning in a clinical context and examined clinicians' perceptions of their therapeutic role in the system's use as an intervention tool. Methods: In this observational sequential explanatory mixed methods study, five children with cerebral palsy [mean age 9.4 years (SD, 0.5), Gross Motor Function Classification System Levels I-III] used Bootle Blast during a single video-recorded therapy session with their treating clinicians (physical therapists, occupational therapists, and therapy assistants). Children played one Bootle Blast mini game independently (without clinician involvement) before clinicians carried out therapy sessions with the game as per usual care. The type and extent of motor learning strategies (MLS) delivered by Bootle Blast and clinicians were rated from video recordings by a trained assessor using the 22-item Motor Learning Strategies Rating Instrument. Semi-structured interviews with clinicians were conducted to gain insights into MLS use and clinicians' perceived role during Bootle Blast use. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed independently by two researchers using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged and reported using narrative and joint display approaches. Results: Bootle Blast provided eight MLS, with clinicians adding or enhancing another eight. Four themes reflected clinicians' perspectives: (1) Bootle Blast disguises therapy as play, (2) clinicians give Bootle Blast the human touch; (3) home use of Bootle Blast is promising; and (4) Bootle Blast is not always the right fit but some shortcomings could be addressed. Agreement was found for nine MLS and disagreement for four MLS when quantitative and qualitative findings were merged. Discussion: Bootle Blast delivers several MLS as part of game play and clinicians can enhance and provide additional MLS to suit the child's needs/abilities. Further game refinements that were identified in this study may optimize its clinical use.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Medical TechnologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207