背景:资源丰富的国家正面临老龄化社会的挑战,依赖的风险很高,和高昂的护理费用。研究人员试图通过使用成本效益来解决这些问题,创新技术,以促进健康衰老和恢复功能。受伤后,有效的康复对于促进返回家园和防止制度化至关重要。然而,经常缺乏进行物理治疗的动力。因此,人们对测试新的方法越来越感兴趣,如游戏化的身体康复,以实现功能目标和防止再次住院。
目的:本研究的目的是评估个人移动设备与标准护理相比在肌肉骨骼问题患者的康复治疗中的有效性。
方法:将57名年龄在67-95岁之间的患者随机分配到每周3次使用游戏化康复设备的干预组(n=35)或接受常规标准护理的对照组(n=22)。由于辍学,仅41例患者被纳入干预后分析.结果测量包括短物理性能电池(SPPB),等距手握力(IHGS),功能独立性度量(FIM),和步数。
结果:在住院期间发现了与主要结局(SPPB)相关的非劣效性,对照组和干预组之间的任何次要结局均未发现显着差异(IHGS,FIM,或步骤),这证明了严肃的基于游戏的干预与医院的标准身体康复一样有效的潜力。SPPB的混合效应回归分析显示组×时间交互作用(SPPB_I_t1=-0.77,95%CI-2.03至0.50,P=.23;SPPB_I_t2=0.21,95%CI-1.07至0.48,P=.75)。虽然不重要,积极的IHGS改善超过2公斤(右:2.52公斤,95%CI-0.72至5.37,P=.13;左侧:2.43kg,观察到干预组患者的95%CI-0.18至4.23,P=.07)。
结论:严重的基于游戏的康复可能是老年患者恢复功能的有效替代方法。
背景:ClinicalTrials.govNCT03847454;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03847454。
BACKGROUND: Resource-rich countries are facing the challenge of aging societies, a high risk of dependence, and a high cost of care. Researchers attempted to address these issues by using cost-efficient, innovative technology to promote healthy aging and regain functionality. After an injury, efficient rehabilitation is crucial to promote returning home and prevent institutionalization. However, there is often a lack of motivation to carry out physical therapies. Consequently, there is a growing interest in testing new approaches like gamified physical rehabilitation to achieve functional targets and prevent rehospitalization.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this
study is to assess the effectiveness of a personal mobility device compared with standard care in the rehabilitation treatment of patients with musculoskeletal issues.
METHODS: A total of 57 patients aged 67-95 years were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=35) using the gamified rehabilitation equipment 3 times a week or to the control group (n=22) receiving usual standard care. Due to dropout, only 41 patients were included in the postintervention analysis. Outcome measures included the short physical performance battery (SPPB), isometric hand grip strength (IHGS), functional independence measure (FIM), and the number of steps.
RESULTS: A noninferiority related to the primary outcome (SPPB) was identified during the hospital stay, and no significant differences were found between the control and intervention groups for any of the secondary outcomes (IHGS, FIM, or steps), which demonstrates the potential of the serious game-based intervention to be as effective as the standard physical rehabilitation at the hospital. The analysis by mixed-effects regression on SPPB showed a group×time interaction (SPPB_I_t1=-0.77, 95% CI -2.03 to 0.50, P=.23; SPPB_I_t2=0.21, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.48, P=.75). Although not significant, a positive IHGS improvement of more than 2 kg (Right: 2.52 kg, 95% CI -0.72 to 5.37, P=.13; Left: 2.43 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to 4.23, P=.07) for the patient from the intervention group was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Serious game-based rehabilitation could potentially be an effective alternative for older patients to regain their functional capacities.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03847454; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03847454.