Subjective Performance Expectations From and Demographic and Categorical Differences in the Acceptance of Virtual Reality or AI Technologies in Rehabilitation Programs: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Survey With Rehabilitation Patients.

Abstract

Background: More than a few concepts have been presented in rehabilitation clinics that implement aspects of modern IT in the arrangement of augmented reality or virtual rehabilitation aiming to enhance cognitive or motor learning and rehabilitation motivation. Despite their scientific success, it is currently unknown whether rehabilitants will accept rehabilitation concepts that integrate modern ITs.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the subjective performance expectations of rehabilitation patients regarding the application of virtual reality (VR) or artificial intelligence technologies across various therapeutic fields, and to identify demographic and categorical differences in acceptance to inform the development and implementation of VR-based rehabilitation programs.

Methods: In total, 111 rehabilitation patients were surveyed about their subjective performance expectations of VR in 15 therapeutic fields with a questionnaire. The distribution of the responses was evaluated using box plots. The relationship between the subjective performance expectations for the 15 therapeutic fields was analyzed using the Spearman ρ coefficient, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare subjective performance expectations between age groups and between genders.

Results: For all 15 therapeutic fields, the median of the subjective performance expectations was between 2 and 3, while therapeutic fields in the categories "activity/movement," "competence in daily life/communication," and "education" tended to be rated higher than therapeutic fields in the categories "relaxation/passive measures" and "advisory/conversation." A significant rank correlation was observed for 103 out of 105 pairwise comparisons of the therapeutic fields, with distinct patterns of effects sizes within the chosen categories. There was no significant difference in the evaluation between rehabilitants of employable age and those aged 68 years or older. Male rehabilitation patients reported greater subjective expectations for virtual rehabilitation than female patients, but there was only a significant difference with small effect sizes for 3 of the 15 therapeutic fields.

Conclusions: The general trend is that patients can imagine taking part in VR in rehabilitation activities involving active movement (physiotherapy, sports and exercise therapy, and occupational therapy) and health education. The results of the survey show that there is also a high level of support for the therapeutic field advisory/conversation. Current circumstances have led to substantial use of virtual offerings in practice. The limited data available may have encouraged the professional development of VR systems and their widespread use in medical rehabilitation follow-up in the home setting.