| Literature DB >> 25889914 |
Roberto Llorens1,2, Enrique Noé3, Joan Ferri4, Mariano Alcañiz5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study determines the feasibility of different approaches to integrative videogame-based group therapy for improving self-awareness, social skills, and behaviors among traumatic brain injury (TBI) victims and retrieves participant feedback.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25889914 PMCID: PMC4404289 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0029-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1Participants in the middle of a session. Participants interacting with the videogame. The team in the top of the picture has the turn. A participant belonging to the team located in the opposite side of the multitouch table is reading a question card about reasoning (blue card): “Rose has just left the ICU. Her relatives are a little worried because she is being hospitalized in a neurorehabilitation unit next week. What would you tell them to calm them down (functioning of the unit, admission to the floors, rehabilitation process, etc.)?” Participants who have the turn have to listen to the question, answer it, and justify the answer. After that, the therapist will involve the other participants in a debate about the question.
Characteristics of the participants
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| Males | 27 (64.3%) |
| Females | 15 (35.7%) |
|
| 41.71 ± 13.49 |
|
| 227.95 ± 50.20 |
|
| |
| Traffic accident | 33 (78.6%) |
| Workplace accident | 5 (11.9%) |
| Fall | 4 (9.5%) |
|
| |
| Moderate (9–12) | 3 (7.1%) |
| Severe (<9) | 39 (92.9%) |
Age and chronicity are defined in terms of mean and standard deviation. Gender, cause of the injury, and Glasgow Comma Scale are expressed as number of participants and percentage of the total number of participants.
Clinical data
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Altered | Not altered | Altered | Not altered | |||
| Perception of deficits | 16 (38.1%) | 26 (61.9%) | 3 (7.1%) | 39 (92.9%) |
| ||
| Perception of disability | 24 (57.1%) | 18 (42.9%) | 12 (28.6%) | 30 (71.4%) |
| ||
| Realistic plan-making | 31 (73.8%) | 11 (26.2%) | 19 (45.2%) | 23 (54.8%) |
| ||
|
| Altered | Not altered | Altered | Not altered |
| ||
| 32 (76.2%) | 10 (23.8%) | 18 (42.9%) | 24 (57.1%) | ||||
|
| Very altered | Altered | Not altered | Very altered | Altered | Not altered |
|
| 6 (14.3%) | 25 (59.5%) | 11 (26.2%) | 0 (0%) | 14 (33.3%) | 28 (66.7%) | ||
|
| Clinically significant | Borderline impairment | Not altered | Clinically significant | Borderline impairment | Not altered |
|
| 28 (66.7%) | 8 (19.0%) | 6 (14.3%) | 18 (42.9%) | 8 (19.0%) | 16 (38.1%) | ||
Results are expressed as number of participants and percentage of the total number of participants.
Usability and motivation reports
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| Interest/enjoyment | 5.74 ± 0.69 |
| Perceived competence | 5.53 ± 0.63 |
| Pressure/tension | 2.07 ± 0.97 |
| Value/usefulness | 6.31 ± 0.50 |
|
| 80.43 ± 8.01 |
Results are defined in terms of mean and standard deviation.