MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404430977 · doi:10.3389/frdem.2024.1462946

The staff perspectives of facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual reality for people living with dementia in long-term care

2024· article· en· W4404430977 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joey Wong, Karen Lok Yi Wong, Winnie Kan, Catherine J. Wu, Mona Upreti, Mary Van, Alisha Temirova, Hadil Alfares, Vaishali Sharma, Christine Wallsworth, Jim Mann, Lily Wong, Lillian Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVancouver Foundation
KeywordsThematic analysisFocus groupImplementation researchDementiaWorkloadWorkflowVirtual realityLong-term carePsychologyNursingMedical educationQualitative researchMedicinePsychological interventionComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: One emerging technology in long-term care (LTC) is virtual reality (VR), an innovative tool that uses head-mounted devices to provide the viewer with an immersive experience. It has been shown that VR has a positive impact on the well-being of residents living with dementia, and staff are essential in the implementation and sustainable use of technology. Currently, there is a lack of inclusion and focus on direct staff perspectives on VR implementation in LTC. This paper aims to report staff perspectives on VR adoption in a 2-year study on a virtual reality program at three Canadian LTC homes. Methods: Our interdisciplinary team (clinicians, people living with dementia and family partners, trainees, and researchers) explored the facilitators and barriers to implementing VR in LTC, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and intersectionality supplemented CFIR. Twenty-one participants were recruited, including recreation staff, care aides, nurses, screeners, and leadership team members. The team collected data through staff interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observation field notes. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed to identify themes reporting the facilitators and barriers for VR implementation in LTC from staff perspectives. Results: The data analysis resulted in three facilitators and four barriers. Facilitators are (1) perceived VR benefits, (2) integrate VR into workflow and routines, and (3) partner with skillful VR champions. Barriers include (1) staff concerns about VR use, (2) financial burden and competing priorities, (3) lack of infrastructure and physical spaces, and (4) staff workload and limited leadership support. Discussion: This study contributes to the field with staff perspectives on facilitators and barriers to VR implementation. It underscores the rarely discussed aspects of VR implementation, such as funding prioritization and implementation timing. We offer practical strategies to inform future practices and research. Future studies should further explore long-term VR implementation, the involvement of family members as VR facilitators, and the use of VR in LTC.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in DementiaSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207