Usability study demonstrates high engagement and usability for an exergaming system in heart failure, suggesting viability for hospital early mobilisation.
Aims This study aimed to develop and test usability for an exergaming prototype with remote monitoring of biometric parameters and autonomous management for promoting hospital early mobilisation and disease knowledge in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods The study included two phases: 1) the design and development of the exergaming prototype encompassing a lower limb aerobic endurance game and an upper limb coordination and mobilization game, 2) its usability assessment. The usability evaluation involved several steps, starting from the initial assessment by the researchers, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the video recordings of 10 patients (4 females) with HF and reduced (4) or mildly reduced (6) ejection fraction engaging in individual sessions with the prototype. Finally, all 10 participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS; scale ranging from 0 to 100) and Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; scale ranging from 0 to 35) to rate the usability of the exergaming prototype and the intrinsic motivation scale, respectively. Results During the usability assessment and after implementing experts’ improvements, participants successfully engaged with 63% and 32% of the elements of the two exergames. No participant experienced dizziness except for one patient who reported it at the curves in the road cycling tour. The mean IMI score of 25.1 (SD = 3.5) indicates a high level of interest and enjoyment following the prototype session. Additionally, with the SUS, the mean score of 71.5 (SD = 17.8) suggests that the users rated the system´s usability as excellent. Conclusions This study suggests that HEFMOB is a safe, engaging and user-friendly device for patients with HF. Future research is required to demonstrate the efficacy and effectiveness of HEFMOB conclusively. Figure 1. Prototype scheme diagram Figure 2. Virtual road cycling tour
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blasco-Peris et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: