Angelica G Thompson-Butel1, Christine T Shiner2, John McGhee3, Benjamin John Bailey3, Pascal Bou-Haidar4, Michael McCorriston3, Steven G Faux5. 1. St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. 2. St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: Christine.Shiner@svha.org.au. 3. University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. St. Vincent's Private Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Education is essential to promote prevention of recurrent stroke and maximize rehabilitation; however, current techniques are limited and many patients remain dissatisfied. Virtual reality (VR) may provide an alternative way of conveying complex information through a more universal language. AIM: To develop and conduct preliminary assessments on the use of a guided and personalized 3D visualization education session via VR, for stroke survivors and primary caregivers. METHODS: Four poststroke patients and their 4 primary caregivers completed the 3D visualization education session as well as pre- and postintervention interviews. Each patient had a different stroke etiology (i.e., ischemic thrombotic stroke, ischemic embolic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack followed by ischemic stroke, respectively). This new approach uses preintervention interview responses, patient MRI and CT datasets, VR head mounted displays, 3D computer modeling, and game development software to develop the visualization. Pre- and postintervention interview responses were analyzed using a qualitative phenomenological methodology approach. RESULTS: All participants safely completed the study and were highly satisfied with the education session. In this subset of participants, prior formal stroke education provision was limited. All participants demonstrated varied improvements in knowledge areas including brain anatomy and physiology, brain damage and repair, and stroke-specific information such as individual stroke risk factors and acute treatment benefits. These improvements were accompanied by feelings of closure, acceptance, and a greater motivation to manage their stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest this approach provides a safe and promising educational tool to promote understanding of individualized stroke experiences.
BACKGROUND: Education is essential to promote prevention of recurrent stroke and maximize rehabilitation; however, current techniques are limited and many patients remain dissatisfied. Virtual reality (VR) may provide an alternative way of conveying complex information through a more universal language. AIM: To develop and conduct preliminary assessments on the use of a guided and personalized 3D visualization education session via VR, for stroke survivors and primary caregivers. METHODS: Four poststroke patients and their 4 primary caregivers completed the 3D visualization education session as well as pre- and postintervention interviews. Each patient had a different stroke etiology (i.e., ischemic thrombotic stroke, ischemic embolic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack followed by ischemic stroke, respectively). This new approach uses preintervention interview responses, patient MRI and CT datasets, VR head mounted displays, 3D computer modeling, and game development software to develop the visualization. Pre- and postintervention interview responses were analyzed using a qualitative phenomenological methodology approach. RESULTS: All participants safely completed the study and were highly satisfied with the education session. In this subset of participants, prior formal stroke education provision was limited. All participants demonstrated varied improvements in knowledge areas including brain anatomy and physiology, brain damage and repair, and stroke-specific information such as individual stroke risk factors and acute treatment benefits. These improvements were accompanied by feelings of closure, acceptance, and a greater motivation to manage their stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest this approach provides a safe and promising educational tool to promote understanding of individualized stroke experiences.