Advancing Digital Access to Physical Therapy via Virtual and Extended Reality Technology: Prototype Development and Usability Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The United States faces significant challenges in physical therapy (PT) access due to high demand, a shortage of professionals, and patient-related obstacles, which can adversely affect recovery and function. Limited access to PT may lead to increased dependence on medications for pain management, highlighting the need for nonpharmacologic options to reduce opioid overprescribing. Low back pain, a leading cause of disability and high medical costs, is a common reason for requiring PT following surgery. Studies have shown that virtual reality (VR)-guided movements can improve motor function and reduce pain intensity. Objective: The objective of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate a VR-based prototype for individualized postoperative PT for patients recovering from back surgery to investigate its potential to improve convenience, access, and health outcomes in future research. Methods: Study methods involved participatory design and development of VR software for PT back exercises using the design box method, an inductive, problem-oriented collaborative design approach. A usability evaluation of the resulting prototype was conducted with patients recovering from back surgery using a think-aloud protocol and usability survey. Results: Six participants evaluated the VR prototype and reported usability challenges that included mismatched VR boundaries, limited familiarity with VR, and difficulties with the headset and hand controls. The System Usability Scale resulted in a total usability score of 58.3 out of 100, indicating a below-average score (68 being average). Conclusions: In the design and evaluation of a VR-based PT prototype, we found that while participants were enthusiastic, they faced usability challenges due to insufficient instructions and difficulties operating the VR device, highlighting the need for effective onboarding and extensive prototype testing to improve accessibility and engagement in health care. Future evaluations will investigate disparities among different groups to ensure accessibility and effectiveness for all users.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".