The perspectives of stroke survivors and health professionals on the use of augmented reality for inpatient stroke rehabilitation: an anticipatory exploration

 

What is difference between VR and AR?

The distinctions between VR and AR come down to the devices they require and the experience itself: AR uses a real-world setting while VR is completely virtual. ... VR requires a headset device, but AR can be accessed with a smartphone. AR enhances both the virtual and real world while VR only enhances a fictional reality.

The perspectives of stroke survivors and health professionals on the use of augmented reality for inpatient stroke rehabilitation: an anticipatory exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2021

Cassandra Gorman ,

Louise Gustafsson [Opens in a new window]  and

Carly Gomura

Show author details

---

• Article
• Metrics

Get access

Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

---

Abstract

Background:

Augmented reality is a novel technology with potential to overlay aspects or objects from the home environment into hospital-based training, which may increase relevance and motivation for hospital-based rehabilitation. Consultation with people with lived experience and clinician stakeholders is an important step when exploring possibilities for use of new technology in the hospital environment.

Aims:

This study sought to understand the need and acceptability of augmented reality from the perspectives of health professionals and stroke survivors during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

Methods:

This qualitative descriptive study included stroke survivors (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 10) from a large metropolitan hospital. Data collection was undertaken via focus groups which were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results:

Inductive content analysis revealed three themes: everything is computerised these days; the possibilities are endless…but what about?; and bringing the outside into the hospital. Participants were open to the use of augmented reality for stroke rehabilitation; however there was uncertainty with pragmatic concerns and stroke survivors describing possible applications in building confidence and self-efficacy, and sharing experiences to enhance caregivers understanding.

Conclusion:

This research identified that there is potential acceptability for augmented reality in stroke rehabilitation. The needs identified by the participants may inform development of current and future technology.