Randomized trial demonstrates virtual reality game training improves balance, lower limb strength, and fall efficacy in older adults, indicating its viability as an alternative therapy.
Purpose: To investigate the effects of virtual reality game-based balance training on the static balance, dynamic balance, lower limb strength, and fall efficacy of healthy older adults, and to compare its effectiveness with conventional balance training.Methods: A two-arm randomized controlled trial.Twenty healthy older adults aged 65 years and older were enrolled and allocated randomly to a virtual reality game-based balance training group (n= 10) or a conventional balance training group (n= 10).Both groups participated in balance training three times per week for two weeks, with each session lasting 40 minutes.The virtual reality group performed training using the K-Plates system, whereas the conventional group trained using a balance pad and BOSU ball.The assessments were performed before and after the intervention.The outcome measures included the static balance (K-Force Plate), dynamic balance (Berg Balance Scale), lower limb strength (K-Push system), and fall efficacy (Fall Efficacy Scale).Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in the dynamic balance, quadriceps and gluteus muscle strength, and fall efficacy after the intervention (p < 0.05).The static balance improved over time in both groups (time effect, p < 0.05), whereas no significant group effect or group-by-time interaction was observed.No significant between-group differences were observed in any outcome measure (p> 0.05).Conclusion: Virtual reality game-based balance training and conventional balance training effectively improved the dynamic balance, lower limb strength, and fall efficacy in healthy older adults.Although no significant differences were observed between the groups, virtual reality game-based balance training may be considered an effective alternative intervention for enhancing the balance and physical function in healthy older adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: