4.7 Article

Is the Nintendo Wii Fit really acceptable to older people?: a discrete choice experiment

期刊

BMC GERIATRICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-11-64

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council Health Services Program Grant [402791]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Interactive video games such as the Nintendo Wii Fit are increasingly used as a therapeutic tool in health and aged care settings however, their acceptability to older people is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of the Nintendo Wii Fit as a therapy tool for hospitalised older people using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) before and after exposure to the intervention. Methods: A DCE was administered to 21 participants in an interview style format prior to, and following several sessions of using the Wii Fit in physiotherapy. The physiotherapist prescribed the Wii Fit activities, supervised and supported the patient during the therapy sessions. Attributes included in the DCE were: mode of therapy (traditional or using the Wii Fit), amount of therapy, cost of therapy program and percentage of recovery made. Data was analysed using conditional (fixed-effects) logistic regression. Results: Prior to commencing the therapy program participants were most concerned about therapy time (avoiding programs that were too intensive), and the amount of recovery they would make. Following the therapy program, participants were more concerned with the mode of therapy and preferred traditional therapy programs over programs using the Wii Fit. Conclusions: The usefulness of the Wii Fit as a therapy tool with hospitalised older people is limited not only by the small proportion of older people who are able to use it, but by older people's preferences for traditional approaches to therapy. Mainstream media portrayals of the popularity of the Wii Fit with older people may not reflect the true acceptability in the older hospitalised population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据