| Literature DB >> 35536610 |
Jana Marina Kleschnitzki1, Inga Grossmann2, Reinhard Beyer1, Luzi Beyer3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pandemic has highlighted the importance of low-threshold opportunities for exercise and physical activity. At the beginning of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to many restrictions, which affected seniors in care facilities in the form of severe isolation. The isolation led, among other things, to a lack of exercise, which has led to a multitude of negative effects for this target group. Serious games can potentially help by being used anywhere at any time to strengthen skills with few resources.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; aged; care home; coronavirus effects; digital game; digital health; eHealth; elder; exercise; intervention effects analysis; long-term care; motor; motor skills; movement; older adult; pandemic; physical activity; senior population; seniors; serious games
Year: 2022 PMID: 35536610 PMCID: PMC9094716 DOI: 10.2196/36768
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Serious Games Impact factor: 3.364
Figure 1Exemplary Bowling module in the serious game MemoreBox.
Figure 2Survey times, periods of operationalization, and dropout reasons. CG: control group; IG: intervention group.
Mean values, SDs, and statistical differences of the examined variables: IGa and CGb at measurement time T0.
| Variables | IG (N=31), mean (SD) | CG (N=39), mean (SD) | Statistics | 95% CI |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Age (years) | 85.45 (4.99) | 86.66 (8.76) | .718 (60.5) | .48 | –0.311 to 0.639 |
|
| Level of care neededc | 2.34 (0.974) | 2.47 (0.71) | .592 (61) | .56 | –0.347 to 0.645 |
|
| State of healthd | 2.33 (1.07) | 3.16 (1.22) | –.623 (66) | .54 | –0.631 to 0.328 |
|
| Health behaviore | 2.42 (0.720) | 2.54 (0.97) | .570 (68) | .57 | –0.335 to 0.609 |
|
| Health self-assessmentf | 2.84 (0.735) | 2.92 (0.81) | .452 (68) | .65 | –0.364 to 0.580 |
|
| Tinetti mean | 1.15 (0.37) | 1.05 (0.41) | –.974 (68) | .33 | –0.707 to 0.240 |
|
| Tinetti total sum | 18.16 (5.88) | 16.67 (6.58) | –.989 (68) | .33 | –0.710 to 0.236 |
|
aIG: intervention group (playing regularly).
bCG: control group.
c0=no need for care to 5=most severe impairment.
d0= healthy to 5=chronically ill.
e0=does not take care of health to 5=strongly focuses on health.
f0=“I rate my health as very bad” to 5=“I rate my health as very good.”
Figure 3Results of the Tinetti total score for the IG and CG over 6 months of intervention. T0: IG (mean 18.16, SD 5.88), CG (mean 16.67, SD 6.58); T1: IG (mean 19, SD 6.77), CG (mean 16.62, SD 7.93); T2: IG (mean 19.81, SD 6.34), CG (mean 16.23, SD 7.14); CG: control group; IG: intervention group.
Figure 4Significant differences after 9 months of intervention between IG and CG and between measurement times. CG: control group; IG: intervention group.