Investigating dose-response patterns in virtual reality rehabilitation: a pilot study of patient satisfaction in subacute stroke

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00843989%3A_____%2F25%3AE0111981" target="_blank" >RIV/00843989:_____/25:E0111981 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/61988987:17110/25:A2603DN0

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1678042" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1678042</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1678042" target="_blank" >10.3389/fresc.2025.1678042</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Investigating dose-response patterns in virtual reality rehabilitation: a pilot study of patient satisfaction in subacute stroke

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background: Virtual reality (VR) rehabilitation shows promise for stroke recovery, but optimal dosage remains unclear. We examined the relationship between VR therapy intensity and patient satisfaction, while assessing methodological challenges in dose-response research. Objective: To investigate relationships between VR rehabilitation dosage (sessions, duration) and patient satisfaction in subacute stroke patients, and identify requirements for future definitive studies. Methods: We analyzed data from 19 subacute ischemic stroke patients who received VR rehabilitation using VR Vitalis® Pro system (January–December 2024). Patient satisfaction was measured with the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ). We examined correlations between VR dosage variables and satisfaction, then conducted post-hoc power analysis and confounding assessment. Results: Patients averaged 25.0 ± 6.8 USEQ points, with 68% achieving high satisfaction. They completed 4.2 ± 4.1 VR sessions (range 1–13), but 58% received only 1–2 sessions due to clinical factors. No significant correlation emerged between sessions and satisfaction (r = 0.18, p = 0.47). Post-hoc analysis revealed only 11% statistical power for the observed effect. VR sessions strongly correlated with hospital stay (r = 0.664, p = 0.002), indicating confounding by clinical severity rather than research-controlled dosage. Conclusions: Our underpowered study (11% power) with substantial clinical confounding cannot determine dose-response relationships or inform practice. Future studies need larger samples (n ? 85) with randomized dosage allocation. Our main contribution is demonstrating methodological requirements for rigorous VR dose-response research.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Investigating dose-response patterns in virtual reality rehabilitation: a pilot study of patient satisfaction in subacute stroke

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background: Virtual reality (VR) rehabilitation shows promise for stroke recovery, but optimal dosage remains unclear. We examined the relationship between VR therapy intensity and patient satisfaction, while assessing methodological challenges in dose-response research. Objective: To investigate relationships between VR rehabilitation dosage (sessions, duration) and patient satisfaction in subacute stroke patients, and identify requirements for future definitive studies. Methods: We analyzed data from 19 subacute ischemic stroke patients who received VR rehabilitation using VR Vitalis® Pro system (January–December 2024). Patient satisfaction was measured with the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ). We examined correlations between VR dosage variables and satisfaction, then conducted post-hoc power analysis and confounding assessment. Results: Patients averaged 25.0 ± 6.8 USEQ points, with 68% achieving high satisfaction. They completed 4.2 ± 4.1 VR sessions (range 1–13), but 58% received only 1–2 sessions due to clinical factors. No significant correlation emerged between sessions and satisfaction (r = 0.18, p = 0.47). Post-hoc analysis revealed only 11% statistical power for the observed effect. VR sessions strongly correlated with hospital stay (r = 0.664, p = 0.002), indicating confounding by clinical severity rather than research-controlled dosage. Conclusions: Our underpowered study (11% power) with substantial clinical confounding cannot determine dose-response relationships or inform practice. Future studies need larger samples (n ? 85) with randomized dosage allocation. Our main contribution is demonstrating methodological requirements for rigorous VR dose-response research.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30307 - Nursing

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences

ISSN

2673-6861

e-ISSN

2673-6861

Svazek periodika

6

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

article 1678042

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

1-7

Kód UT WoS článku

001604044900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105020440138