Perceptions of Patients With Stroke Regarding an Immersive Virtual Reality–Based Exercise System for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Questionnaire and Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With substantial resources allocated to develop virtual reality (VR)-based rehabilitation exercise programs for poststroke motor rehabilitation, it is important to understand how patients with stroke perceive these technology-driven approaches, as their perceptions can determine acceptance and adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the perceptions of patients with stroke regarding an immersive VR-based exercise system developed to deliver shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist, and reaching exercises. METHODS: A questionnaire was used to assess the perceptions of 21 inpatients who had experienced stroke (mean time from stroke onset: 37.2, SD 25.9 days; Brunnstrom stage of stroke recovery for the arm: 3-5) regarding the perceived usefulness of, ease of use of, attitude toward, intrinsic motivation for, and intention to use the exercise system. The measurement items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree), with higher values indicating more positive perceptions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the responses. Moreover, we conducted semistructured interviews that were audio recorded, transcribed, and subjected to content analysis to identify thematic patterns. RESULTS: The questionnaire results revealed that the patients' perceptions of the exercise system were positive (mean ratings >6). The content analysis revealed 6 positive themes from 73 statements about the exercise system: ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment, motivation, accessibility, and game design. Conversely, 15 statements reflected negative perceptions, which were clustered into 3 themes: difficulty in handling VR devices, uncomfortable experiences when using VR devices, and monotony. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating VR technology into poststroke functional exercises holds significant promise based on patient interests. However, patient preferences and adaptability must be considered to promote the technology's success. VR-guided exercises should be user-friendly, health-promoting, engaging, and well-designed. Furthermore, addressing challenges, such as bulkiness, motion sickness, discomfort, and exercise monotony, is crucial for the widespread adoption and diffusion of this technology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".