Pulmonary and Physical Virtual Reality Exercises for Patients With Blunt Chest Trauma: Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate pain relief, early restoration of breathing, and rapid mobilization pose a clinical challenge in patients with blunt chest trauma. Virtual reality (VR) has the potential to achieve these 3 interrelated treatment objectives with enhanced self-efficacy and autonomy of patients and limited support by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectivity of breathing and physical exercises using VR on the pulmonary recovery of patients with blunt chest trauma at the ward. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was performed. The control group received usual physiotherapy consisting of protocolized breathing exercises (8 times daily for 10 minutes) and physical exercises (2 times daily for 10 minutes). The VR group was instructed to perform these exercises using VR. The primary outcome was vital lung capacity at day 5 or earlier at discharge. Secondary outcomes were patient mobility (time standing, lying, and sitting), clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, pulmonary complications, transfer to intensive care unit, and readmission within 30 days), pain, activities of daily living, patient-reported outcome measures (satisfaction and quality of recovery). Patient experiences and barriers and facilitators toward implementation were assessed through interviews. RESULTS: The study was prematurely ended due to enrollment failure combined with poor protocol adherence to exercises in both groups. A total of 27 patients were included, of which 19 patients completed 3 or more days. Vital lung capacity at 5 days (or last measurement) was equal between groups with 1830 (SD 591) mL and 1857 (SD 435) mL in the control and VR groups, respectively. No marked differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Patient interviews showed positive attitudes toward the use of VR, describing that visualization of the exercises helped patients to perform the exercises correctly and to continue the exercises for a longer duration. Also, patients experienced the immersiveness of VR as an analgesic. However, patients did not experience added value over usual care and reported that better integration in treatment and the hectic hospital environment could improve the use of the VR exercises. CONCLUSIONS: The suitability of patients to use virtual reality therapy (VRx) in a hospital (trauma) ward setting is lower than generally expected. Effective application of VRx requires professional guidance and needs thorough alignment with clinical practice. For future research, we recommend to chart adherence to study protocol before designing a VR clinical trial. Patient-reported experiences need to be prioritized in evaluating VR acceptance, usability, and effectiveness. In line, we recommend performing a systematic analysis (eg, using the technology acceptance model) on the acceptance before pilot or main effectiveness studies. Finally, the eligibility of patients and exclusion of patients due to the inability to use VRx should be routinely reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05194176; https://tinyurl.com/2bzh4tzx.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".