Design Considerations for an Exergame-Based Training Intervention for Older Adults With Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: Qualitative Study Including Focus Groups With Experts and Health Care Professionals and Individual Semistructured In-depth Patient Interviews


IntroductionBackground

The normal aging process is associated with a decline in physical and cognitive abilities [,]. When the cognitive decline exceeds the normal age-related cognitive decline but is not severe enough to interfere with independence in activities of daily living, it can be classified as “mild cognitive impairment” (MCI), representing an intermediate stage of cognitive impairment between the normal aging process and dementia [-]. The condition MCI has evolved over the last decades [] and has recently been incorporated in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision, referred to as mild neurocognitive disorder (mNCD) [,-]. The prevalence of mNCD increases with age, while the incidence of mNCD and the progression to dementia is expected to rise, largely because of the globally growing life expectancies and sedentary lifestyles [,,-]. As currently no effective pharmacological interventions for patients with mNCD exist [], alternative options to prevent and treat neurocognitive disorders are needed. Targeting modifiable risk factors in midlife may hold promise for mitigating or even preventing neurocognitive disorders in later life [-]. The modifiable risk factors for mNCD include the presence of vascular risk factors (ie, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, or stroke) [-] or a physically or cognitively sedentary lifestyle [,]. Consequently, changes in lifestyle that increase physical and cognitive activity and reduce vascular risk factors are protective against cognitive decline [-].

Exergames have gained growing interest to prevent and treat neurocognitive disorders [-]. “Exergaming is defined as technology-driven physical activities, such as video game play, that requires participants to be physically active or exercise in order to play the game” []. One of the major advantages of exergame-based training is that it is widely accepted by individuals with neurocognitive disorders. In addition, it increases training adherence and engagement by facilitating training motivation and satisfaction [], which in turn may have a positive effect on the effectiveness of improving cognitive functioning []. Furthermore, exergames can be used as a form of simultaneous cognitive-motor training with incorporated cognitive task demands []. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that simultaneous motor-cognitive training is the most effective type of training for improving cognition in healthy older adults (HOA) [,] and older adults with mNCD [-]. For exergames specifically, a recent systematic review synthesized evidence from low risk of bias studies showing that there were consistent positive effects favoring exergaming in people with mNCD and dementia []. Nonetheless, it is currently difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of exergaming in preventing and treating neurocognitive disorders because of the substantial variations in the exergame-based training used. Therefore, further investigations are needed for the establishment of effective exergame and training components (ie, exercise and training variables such as the frequency, intensity, duration, or volume of training and the type and content of specific exergame scenarios) for cognitive functioning that can be applied with confidence in evidence-based exergame interventions [].

Regarding the design and development of novel exergames, it seems crucial to explicitly include the intended users’ perspectives []. Taking the characteristics, needs, and experiences into account should ensure adequate use and therefore the effectiveness of the solution. Baquero et al [] pointed out that an end user–centered methodological design is most often adopted in the development of computer-based training programs for cognitive rehabilitation of older adults with neurocognitive disorders (NCDs). In an ideal case, this process fulfills the international standards for the development of programs including (1) understanding and specifying the context of use (type, characteristics and tasks of users, and physical or social environment), (2) specifying the user requirements, (3) producing design solutions, and (4) evaluating the design [,]. So far, only half of the studies reporting computer-based interventions took the standard “specification of user requirements” into account []. This has led to the recommendation that future studies in this field should use an interactive and participatory design that explicitly includes end users throughout different iterative cycles of development []. In short, it is important to systematically and thoroughly investigate the specific user requirements and preferences for an exergame-based training concept before it is designed and developed.

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the capabilities, treatment preferences, and motivators for the training of older adults with mNCD and the perspectives of individuals on training goals and settings and requirements for exergame and training components.


MethodsOverview

This study is part of the national project “Brain-IT,” which began in August 2020 in Switzerland. The aims of the overall project are (1) to determine the most suitable components for exergame-based training in older adults with mNCD; (2) to explore novel strategies for a real-time adaptive exergame system to individually tailor exergame demands according to users’ physical or cognitive capabilities; (3) to incorporate the acquired knowledge into an exergame-based training concept with the aim of halting or reducing cognitive decline and improving quality of life; and (4) to evaluate the effectiveness of the resulting training intervention in older adults with mNCD. The project is guided by a theoretical framework that provides specific guidance in the design, development, and evaluation of exergames for older adults, the “Multidisciplinary Iterative Design of Exergames (MIDE): A Framework for Supporting the Design, Development, and Evaluation of Exergames for Health” [], which provides specific guidance in the design, development, and evaluation of exergames for older adults. This study is part of the first phase of the project, with the aim to specify a “set of design requirements that includes design considerations, accessibility recommendations, user modeling elements, and technological reflections to be followed in the design and development phase” [,], and it was combined with an extensive literature review and reflections on technology scoping and sustainability strategy (see steps 4 and 5 of phase 1 of our recently published methodological paper []). For the project, the exergame device “Senso (Flex)” (Dividat AG) was preselected on the basis of (1) our previous research, (2) because this device has already been shown to be feasible and well-accepted in geriatric patients [] and patients with major neurocognitive disorder [], and (3) because it is already widely used (and therefore available more widely and for longer term by end users and health care institutions) for motor-cognitive training within geriatric populations, physiotherapies, or rehabilitation clinics in Switzerland. On this basis, this qualitative study was designed to achieve the defined objectives in general; in addition, it also aimed to collect evidence about the previous experiences of experts or health care professionals with different exergame systems [including the “Senso (Flex)”]. In this way, the project team wanted to collect evidence to make an informed decision whether the specific exergame device was suitable for the project, what possible modifications might be needed to optimize the exergame experience for patients with mNCD, and whether and what alternative exergame devices are suggested by the experts (see subsections of “(T2) Treatment Experience and Preferences—Previous Experiences with Exergames (‘Senso’ specifically)” and “(T5) Exergame and Training Components—Exergame System and Content” in the focus group discussions). Other than parts of these 2 sections that include device-specific findings, none of the remaining sections in this manuscript are device specific.

Study Design

A qualitative study was conducted between November 2020 and January 2021, including expert focus groups and patient interviews; both were organized as semistructured, in-depth interviews. Semistructured, in-depth interviews are the most widely used interviewing format for qualitative research and are generally organized around a set of predetermined open-ended questions, with additional questions and discussion points emerging from the dialogue []. The study was planned and reported in accordance with the “consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ)” [].

The MIDE Framework [] guided our approach. On the basis of this framework, we integrated multiple stakeholders into the design and development process including exergaming researchers, clinical experts with different backgrounds, a company representing the exergaming industry, and the end users.

Ethics Approval

All the study procedures were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol (not registered) was approved by the ETH Zürich Ethics Commission (EK 2020-N-154). All interested individuals were fully informed of the study procedures. The expected benefits and risks of the study were explained by the study investigator, who was also able to answer open questions and clarify individuals’ uncertainties. It was further verified that withdrawal was permitted at any time during the study without providing any reason. After sufficient time, suitable individuals willing to participate in the study provided written informed consent and were included in the study. No compensation was provided to the participants.

ParticipantsExperts

Recruitment aimed at including experts and health care professionals experienced with exergame training of older adults with mNCD, preferably (but not necessarily) with the exergame training system “Senso (Flex)” or similar. For this purpose, Dividat AG was asked to provide a contact list of 10 to 15 external experts and health care professionals with a variety in age, sex, educational level, and experience in therapy of older adults with mNCD, who are not employed by Dividat AG or had received any funds from Dividat AG for their work. All recommended experts and health care professionals were contacted via email between November and December 2020. By applying broad inclusion criteria, a rich spectrum of experts and health care professionals were considered in the study, which in turn will foster the usability of the resulting program in clinical practice. The specific eligibility criteria comprised the following aspects: (1) experts or health care professionals (eg, physical therapists, movement therapists, neuropsychologists, or researchers experienced with exergames) experienced with exergame training or with older adults with mNCD; (2) German or English speaking; and (3) age ≥18 years. There were no specific exclusion criteria.

Older Adults With mNCD

Older adults with mNCD were consecutively recruited between November 2020 and January 2021 in collaboration with health care institutions and (memory) clinics in the larger area of Zürich. Leaflets and study information sheets containing researchers’ contact details were handed out to suitable patients by their therapists. Suitable patients were identified from medical records and patient registries of memory clinics or from diagnostics that had just been performed. Interested patients were contacted by the research team by telephone or email to clarify or obtain further information about the study procedures and to register interest in participating in the study. Subsequently, all patients were fully informed about the study procedures in a face-to-face meeting at the patient’s homes. In addition, patients of interest were screened for eligibility. The eligibility criteria are presented in .

Description of all eligibility criteria.Inclusion criteriaParticipants fulfilling all the following inclusion criteria were eligible:(1= mild neurocognitive disorder [mNCD]) clinical diagnosis of “mNCD” according to International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision [] or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition []) OR (2=sMCI). Patients “screened for MCI” according to the following criteria: (1) informant (ie, health care professional)–based suspicion of mild cognitive impairment confirmed by (2) an objective screening of mild cognitive impairment based on the German version of the using the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen [] with (b1) a recommended cutoff score for cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) of <62/100 [], while (b2) not falling below the cutoff score for dementia (ie, <45/100 [])German speakingExclusion criteriaThe presence of any of the following criteria led to exclusion:Presence of additional, clinically relevant (ie, acute or symptomatic) neurological disorders (ie, epilepsy, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, brain tumors, or traumatic disorders of the nervous system)Presence of any other unstable or uncontrolled diseases (eg, uncontrolled high blood pressure, progressing or terminal cancer, etc)Textbox 1. Description of all eligibility criteria.Procedures and Data CollectionExpert Focus Groups

The expert focus groups were moderated by the first author (PM) into groups of up to 5 experts. The moderator was a male doctoral student with a master’s degree in Health Sciences and Technology (ETH Zürich, Switzerland), who was trained for qualitative research. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, all focus group sessions were held as web-based meetings in the form of Zoom sessions (Zoom Video Communications), took approximately 60 to 90 minutes to complete, and were audio recorded. Each session started with a short presentation of the background and overall aim of the project. Subsequently, the aim of this study was presented before starting the focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were organized as semistructured, in-depth interviews with open-ended questions to enable open conversations []. The exchange was conducted following a focus group guide () structured along 5 topics, each consisting of multiple key questions. First, the capabilities of older adults with mNCD were discussed, in continuation with insights into training goals and outcomes in the perspective of patients as well as therapists. Thereafter, the exchange focused on treatment experiences and preferences as well as motivators for training of older adults with mNCD. Finally, the requirements and optimal components of the exergame-based training were critically discussed. To focus the moderator’s attention on participants’ verbal and nonverbal communication and because handwritten notes during interviews are considered relatively unreliable, no notes were taken during the focus group sessions [].

Patient Interviews With Older Adults With mNCD

The patient interviews were conducted individually with each patient by the first author (PM) and either took place at ETH Zürich (Institute of Human Movement Sciences and Sport, Leopold-Ruzicka-Weg 4, 8093 Zürich) or at the patients’ homes, depending on the patients’ preferences. The interview sessions were held face-to-face in a quiet room with no one present besides the interviewer, the patient, and, if requested, a care professional or partner as personal support for the patient. We did not set a time limit for the interviews but gave all participants enough time to share their views on the topics discussed. On average, each session took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete and was audio recorded. Before starting the interview, the background and overall aim of the project as well as the aim of this study were explained to each patient. The interviews were organized as semistructured, in-depth interviews along an interview guide () []. The interview guide was not pilot-tested, as it was developed by the first author (PM) in collaboration with the second author (MA), an experienced clinical neuropsychologist. After questioning the patients’ capabilities as well as their previous treatment or training experience and preferences, the interview continued with questions about motivators for training and the preferred components of exergame-based training. Open-ended questions were asked to enable an open conversation []. To focus the moderator’s attention on patients’ verbal and nonverbal communication, no notes were taken during the interviews []. Finally, the interviewer was prepared to tailor the interview questions and communication style to the patients’ capabilities, and in case of higher levels of impairment, to adopt strategies suggested to optimize communication with patients with NCDs [,].

Sample Size

The intended sample size was set at approximately 5 to 10 experts for the focus group sessions and 5 to 10 older adults with mNCD for the patient interviews; however, study participants were consecutively included until data saturation was reached [].

Data Analysis

First, all audio files were transcribed in written format in Microsoft Word in pseudonymized form. The transcripts were not returned to the participants for corrections or comments. To explore the perspectives of patients and experts or health care professionals, a qualitative content analysis was performed according to Mayring et al [,] using QCAmap software [-]. The first step in the analysis involved repeated readings of the transcripts and listening to the original audio files to gain a better understanding of the conversation content. Second, the type of analysis (ie, category assignment procedure) was predefined for each of the research questions (ie, key questions of the interview guide). In case of an inductive category assignment procedure, a selection criterion and level of abstraction were defined for each of the research questions. For deductive category assignments, each research question was operationalized into categories, and a corresponding coding guideline (ie, category label, category definition, anchor example, and coding rules) was formulated. On the basis of this, all transcripts were coded line-by-line (ie, including a revision of the category system after a pilot loop). Subsequently, each resulting list of categories was grouped into main categories, and inter- and intra-agreement checks were performed. Finally, the results of each key question were analyzed along the structure (including predetermined themes and topics) of the interview guide that was created according to the guidelines of the MIDE Framework []. Thus, the results were structured and analyzed in 2 main themes and 5 topics. First, the section “user modeling” that included 3 topics: (T1) capabilities of older adults with mNCD, (T2) treatment experiences and preferences, and (T3) motivators for training. Second, “therapeutic needs,” including (T4) training goals and outcomes and (T5) exergame and training components. Within the topic “(T1) capabilities of older adults with mNCD,” the described cognitive capabilities and difficulties were classified into the key neurocognitive domains (as defined by Sachdev et al []) in line with DSM-V [] on agreement between the first (PM) and second author (MA; an experienced neuropsychologist). Within the topic “(T3) motivators for training,” the motivators for training were coded and analyzed against the background of the “Self-determination Theory” []. The Self-determination Theory [] accounts for the quality of different levels of motivational regulation in physical activity settings. It is considered useful to gain a better understanding and promote training motivation, enjoyment, and adherence and has demonstrated considerable efficacy in explaining exercise motivation and behavior [-]. Data from the qualitative content analysis were combined with quantitative data (ie, frequency of various statements [f] and in the case of patient interviews, the proportion of patients making a statement [in %]) []. The coding and data analysis process was cross-checked to enhance the credibility of the analytic procedure [].


ResultsParticipants

In total, 11 external experts and health care professionals were contacted by the first author (PM). All experts responded and were interested in participating. Two experts could not participate in the focus group sessions because of time constraints. According to the “integrative” contribution of the MIDE Framework, “perspectives of various stakeholders (e.g., industry partners, data analysts, health care professionals) are considered in the process of designing and developing exergames” []. In accordance with this, the founder of Dividat AG was involved in one of the focus group discussions as an industry representative. In total, 10 experts and health care professionals (80% females) participated in 1 of the 5 focus group sessions until data saturation was observed and further recruitment was terminated. The focus group sessions were conducted in groups of between 1 (k=3) and 3 (k=1) experts (median 1.5) and the moderator (PM). The professional backgrounds of the experts and health care professionals included exergaming researchers (n=4), physical and occupational therapists (n=2), neuropsychologists (n=2), project manager therapy (n=1), and founder of an exergaming company (n=1).

For the patient interviews, 8 patients (38% females; mean age 82.4, SD 6.2 years; mean level of cognitive functioning, measured by the German Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen [], 56.0, SD 8.2) were invited and interviewed until data saturation was observed and further recruitment was terminated. None of the patients refused to participate or dropped out of the study after providing their written informed consent. The demographic characteristics of the patients are summarized in .

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study population.
Total sample (n=8)Age (years), mean (SD)82.4 (6.2)BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)23.1 (2.4)Physical activity (min/week), mean (SD)298.8 (227.0)Qmcia [] total score (points), mean (SD)56.0 (8.2)Clinical subtype, n (%)
mNCDb due to Alzheimer disease6 (75)
Mild frontotemporal NCDc0 (0)
mNCD with Lewy bodies0 (0)
Mild vascular NCD2 (25)

aQmci: Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen.

bmNCD: mild neurocognitive disorder.

cNCD: neurocognitive disorder.

Qualitative Content Analysis ResultsT1: Capabilities

The experts described a large variety of impairments observed in older adults with mNCD. The most frequently described impairments referred to cognitive functioning (f=43), including impairments in the following neurocognitive domains: executive function (f=23), complex attention (f=11), learning and memory (f=7), visuospatial skills (f=2), language (f=1), and social cognition (f=1). These cognitive changes were also described as affecting psychosocial factors (f=22), mainly by causing psychological distress (f=9) and feelings of insecurity (f=2), leading patients to try to hide their impairments from others (f=2). In addition, an increased fall risk (f=9) and reduced physical resilience (f=7) were observed. Although experiencing difficulties in activities of daily living (ADLs; f=1), patients were described as maintaining their functional independence in ADL (f=2).

In line with the experts’ viewpoint, cognitive deterioration (f=22, n=7, 88%) was frequently described by the patients, mainly affecting learning and memory (f=11, n=4, 50% of patients), executive function (f=6, n=4, 50% of patients), and complex attention (f=5, n=2, 25% of patients), whereas only minor restrictions in physical capabilities and mobility were mentioned (ie, impaired balance, [f=2, n=2, 25% of patients], reduced gait speed [f=1, n=1, 13% of patients], increased fall risk [f=9, n=5, 63% of patients], fatigue [f=6, n=3, 38% of patients], and joint pain [f=2, n=2, 25% of patients]). ADLs remained preserved in all patients, but the need for coping strategies was mentioned by 4 patients (50%) to be able to preserve ADLs. From the patients’ perspective, the consequences of their self-perceived subjective cognitive decline (f=8, n=6, 75% of patients) with regard to psychosocial factors were most frequently reported (f=36, n=8, 100% of patients), mainly involving psychological distress (f=13, n=2, 25%), feelings of insecurity (f=6, n=3, 38% of patients), depressive symptoms (f=2, n=2, 25% of patients), or fear of repeated falls (f=3, n=1, 13% of patients):

A really tedious thing is that you often can’t keep up. For example, in discussions or conversations. [...] You often think about what the other(s) have just said and in the meantime he or she has already continued. That’s why you often just don’t say anything. Of course, most people like it when you don’t say anything (*laughs*). So, these people don’t get upset about it. But I am.
[P-01]I used to go running a lot. I don’t do that anymore. But swimming is still fine. In the worst case, I become a drowned corpse, but at least I can’t fall while swimming.
[P-02]I can actually do everything; I just have to be careful because of my dizziness and weakness so that I don’t fall. I also have problems with short-term memory. I have to try to remember everything somehow, but I still forget a lot of things.
[P-04]T2: Treatment Experience and PreferencesPrevious Treatment and Training Experiences

To counteract cognitive decline and preserve physical capabilities, mobility, and ADLs, patients have already been on medical training therapy (MTT; f=3, n=3, 38% of patients), have already been on physical therapy (PT; f=2, n=2, 25% of patients), have performed a specific group-based (ie, f=1, n=1, 13% of patients) or individual (f=1, n=1, 13% of patients) cognitive training or meditation (f=1, n=1, 13% of patients), or have reported to have no experience in any specific therapy or training (f=1, n=1, 13% of patients).

From the patient’s viewpoint, MTT and PT were perceived as useful (f=3, n=3, 38% of patients), but patients reported that they would have to do it more consistently to profit from it (f=2, n=2, 25% of patients). Computerized cognitive training (CCT) was also perceived as useful (f=1, n=1, 13% of patients) and reported to be challenging, fun, and enjoyable (f=2, n=2, 25% of patients). Nonetheless, patients reported being insecure about the effectiveness of CCT (f=2, n=2, 25% of patients):

[In response to PT] [...]my gait has improved. I now take slow and long steps and no longer fall over. However, I would definitely have to do it more consistently.
[P-02]The problem is primarily that my physical therapist only has time for me every 14 days because she is so booked up. Of course, it would be nice if I could go more often. But it is what it is, and I have to live with it.
[P-08][Patient explains game tasks of CCT] It’s not even that simple. This is all fun and useful. But I don’t know if it will do any good. [and] I have no intention of stopping. However, at some point I have to ask myself: “Does is go any further? Or is it just going to stay at what I’m currently able to manage?”
[P-01]

According to the experience of experts and health care professionals, only cognitive forms of training or physical exercises were often experienced as boring over time by older adults with mNCD (f=2) and required guidance by a therapist (f=2). More integrative forms of training, including gamified tasks close to everyday life, multimodal animation, and acoustic feedback, were reported to be preferred by patients (f=4):

It is often the case that patients are completely dependent during strength training, [and] [...]they just kept on exercising and exercising. [...] They often continue the exercises until you stop them.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]Cognitive exercises including “a certain closeness to everyday life and also a multimodal animation[...] and acoustic feedback have been very well received.”
[E-03: neuropsychologist]Previous Experiences With Novel Technologies

Although being described as skeptical about the use of technological devices, experts perceived older adults with mNCD as ready to use technological devices such as heart rate monitors during training (f=9), if its usability is ensured:

Well I think using a sensor it’s not a problem if the wearable is well designed.
[E-01: exergaming researcher]Many people would certainly be okay with a Polar chest strap, but a monitor to be worn at the wrist would certainly be preferable. If people are told why these sensors are used and what they are measuring, it should be feasible with the chest sensors as well. It may be difficult with certain older ladies or overweight individuals, but for the average individual this should not be a problem.
[E-03: neuropsychologist]

The experts’ perceptions coincided with those of patients. All patients were willing to use a heart rate monitor worn with a chest strap during training, provided it was beneficial for their training. In addition, 75% (6/8) of patients stated that their PC or television was usable, whereas 25% (2/8) of patients reported limited usability:

[Regarding the use of heart rate monitors during training] [...]provided it’s useful I would be ready to wear such a heart rate monitor without having any reservations at all.
[P-01][About the usability of the television] Sure! All you have to do is press the switch. That’s still possible.
[P-07][About the usability of the personal computer] Yes, using my personal computer works more or less. [...] It is just not something of my generation. I have a computer and I use it, but there are always things I can’t do and have to ask my granddaughter.
[P-01]Previous Experiences With Exergames [ “Senso (Flex)” Specifically]

None of the interviewed patients reported any previous experience with exergames in general or with the exergaming system “Senso (Flex)” specifically. Nonetheless, after a short introduction to the system, all patients stated that they would be willing to try it.

On the basis of the previous experiences of the experts and health care professionals, the interaction with the “Senso,” its overall usability, and the design of the exergames have been described as good (f=5). Regarding hardware components, minor usability problems have been reported. Patients were observed to unintentionally walk off the middle plate without noticing the feedback on the screen (f=4), constantly change their focus between the game tasks on the screen and the stepping plate to anticipate and plan their movements (f=4), or make too small steps to tap on one of the outer stepping plates (f=1). In addition, the patients needed time to familiarize themselves with the sensitivity of the stepping plate (f=2):

[...]the “Senso” is in general well usable and is also very often used.
[E-04: exergaming researcher]The tasks on the “Senso” are very well designed.
[E-08: project manager therapy][...]the “Senso” is already very user friendly, [but] I had a little problem at the beginning of the experiment where people would accidentally go out of the square in the middle of the “Senso”.
[E-09: exergaming researcher]Most of the time, the patients look down at that very moment and thus do not see the message [on the screen] at all.
[E-07: physical and occupational therapist]

Additional usability issues were reported to be linked to the capabilities of older adults with mNCD. First, it has been described that patients are often cognitively overloaded when trying out new games (f=1), by the occurrence of an unexpected situation or technical errors (f=2), or by the cognitive task demands required to interact with the exergame system in general (f=1), which may limit training duration owing to attentional exhaustion (f=2):

With new games, patients are often overwhelmed in general, because they don’t know what to expect. They often need time to find their way around.
[E-07: physical and occupational therapist][...] Patients are completely overwhelmed as soon as something unexpected or a technical problem occurs.
[E-03: neuropsychologist]

In contrast, the physical capabilities were reported to not directly affect the usability of the system (f=4), although some patients experienced difficulties with backward steps (f=2), and many patients made use of the handrail to reduce the physical strain (f=6). In some cases, physical limitations (eg, fatigue and joint pain) resulting from static loading have been reported to limit the training duration (f=4):

Patients often have problems with backward steps. [and] Patients hold on to the handrail far too often. [...] it is often the case that people hold on because it is simply ‘a bit more comfortable.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]Often it is already difficult and tiring for patients to stand for a longer period of time. It is often easier for them to walk. [and] However, it should be noted that this form of fatigue is not necessarily comparable to fatigue caused by physical training. Fatigue does not necessarily come from physical exertion. It is possible that this type of fatigue is caused by the static load and the resulting joint pain.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]

When considering the specific games of the exergaming device “Senso” (video illustrations and explanations of all currently available games can be found at []), the simple and clear design structures of the games (f=4) and the intuitive tasks were reported to be highly appreciated by patients and promote good comprehensibility, which was reported for the games “Simple” (f=3), “Birds” (f=3). Nonetheless, there are also games that were reported to cause problems of understanding, in particular the games “Simon” (f=3), “Tetris” (f=3), “Habitats” (f=4), “Targets” (f=1), and “Snake” (f=2). These problems may be related to the game instructions (f=9):

[...]Many people are very happy with simple design structures. This should be maintained at all costs when designing new games for MCI patients. However, [...]some kind of adjustment of the game instructions is definitely needed.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]For patients, a game does not stand out by its great graphics, but by the game tasks as such.
[E-08: project manager therapy][About problems of understanding the games] I think the reasons were that they didn’t really understand the instructions well.
[E-09: exergaming researcher]

However, it could also be related to the task demands of the games. It was reported that the patients need some time to familiarize themselves with the game to fully understand it (f=1). According to the experts’ experiences, this works well with the games “Simple” (f=4), “Birds” (f=1), “Flexi” (f=1), and in some cases “Habitats” (f=1). At the same time, games such as “Flexi” (f=1), “Habitats” (f=6), “Hexagon” (f=3), “Simon” (f=6), “Ski” (f=4), “Targets” (f=12), and “Tetris” (f=4) were frequently reported to start at an already (too) challenging level for older adults with mNCD and progress too fast while there is a limited range of games or adaptability of task demands at the lower end of difficulty levels (f=9). This was mentioned to be mainly apparent for the cognitive task demands (eg, game speed and task complexity), whereas physical exercise intensity is often (too) low and could be increased (f=4):

For MCI-patients, some games are predestined to be used with them, such as “Simple,” “Flexi,” “Birds” and perhaps also “Habitats.” These games don’t put so much time pressure and the feeling of having missed something on patients.
[E-08: project manager therapy][...]the increase in the challenge profile from the easiest games (“Simple” and “Birds”) to the next more difficult game is too steep for MCI-patients. For example, the game “Targets” is too fast for many patients. The game “Habitats” contains too many stimuli at once, so that the patients no longer know what they have to pay attention to.
[E-07: physical and occupational therapist][...]I have the impression that the internal progression, which is responsible for adapting the game demand, sets the lower limit too high and adapts too quickly, so that the cognitive overload becomes visible very quickly, especially in MCI-patients.
[E-08: project manager therapy]One problem with the “Senso,” in general, is that the physical intensity might well be higher.
[E-05: neuropsychologist]

Overwhelming task demands may cause frustration or refusal of games (f=6), although the feedback mechanisms to indicate errors work subtle (f=4). In contrast, games that are perceived as being too easy lead to boredom (f=2):

For example, the games “Targets,” “Ski” or “Hexagon” are very confronting, and patients recognized quite quick: “Okay, I can’t do it,” and that frustrates patients. [...] Usually, these patients stop in the middle and say something like: “Ah, I don’t need that kind of shit.” Most of the time, they stop the training session immediately and don’t want to continue anymore.
[E-08: project manager therapy]My observation was that the negative feedback currently used does not demotivate the patients at all. It is also clear to the patients that they need to know when they are making mistakes and whether they are completing the tasks correctly.
[E-04: exergaming researcher]Some of the negative feedback is so subtle that it is not even noticed.
[E-05: neuropsychologist]T3: Motivators for Training

The experts described numerous motivators for training older adults with mNCD. The most frequently described motivators can be classified as intrinsically regulated motivators (f=44), which are directly related to exergames. Excitement, enjoyment, or fun is perceived as a central motivator for performing exergames (f=4). This was reported to be maintained by the captivating character of exergames (f=1) and multimodal animation (f=1), which is supported by specific game components (eg, game tasks or designs close to everyday life [f=6] or with personal relations or memories [f=1] including music or sound effects [f=8], animals or plants [f=4], landscapes [n=1], or colors [f=1]). In addition, patients were described as intrinsically motivated by gamification (f=6), the feeling of being optimally challenged (n=3), or simply by the variation of training (f=6):

For patients, the focus is primarily on having fun with the games. For example, they [...]liked watching birds and listening to birdsong and felt very motivated by the personal connection. Through these personal memories [...] a whole other level of motivation emerged.
[E-08: project manager therapy]I think that those people who enjoy playing games are generally captured by the playful and competitive nature of the games. Furthermore, training with exergames is something completely different compared to classical therapy. Patients appreciate this change from the “dry” standard therapy.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]

However, when task demands become too high (f=6) or too low (f=2), patients have been observed to promptly lose their willingness to perform the exergames, as already reported. External motivators such as social support (eg, by therapists or caregivers) or group dynamics have also been reported to improve motivation to train (f=12). Feeling concerned about cognitive deterioration or being confronted by performance classifications can either motivate or induce negative feelings (f=7). Finally, some patients were also reported to be motivated by the effectiveness of exergames (f=2) or performance improvements (f=2):

I consider this social support to be very central. [...] If a relative joins in for motivation or support it can be very valuable.
[E-04: exergaming researcher]I think there are always patients who don’t want to know how well they are performing. Forcing performance feedback on such people can of course be motivating, but it could also be negative and confirm their limitations.
[E-07: physical and occupational therapist]

From the patients’ viewpoint, all patients reported that they could primarily be motivated to train regularly by the effectiveness of the training, helping them achieve their individual success (f=13, n=8, 100%). Alternately, patients reported being motivated by their relatives or partners (f=2, n=1, 13%) and enjoyment of exercising (f=1, n=1, 13%). Having to travel to a training facility was reported to have a negative effect on training motivation and adherence (f=4, n=1, 13%):

It would be nice if I could go for a walk in the forest again without falling down. I used to do this four times a week for 75 minutes. It motivates me to train so that I can do this again in the future.
[P-02]It would motivate me if I could improve my abilities (balance) again. [...] I would like to stay independent and modern, not to be called an old lady.
[P-03]The success. I no longer need to be motivated. If I set my mind to it, I do it!
[P-08]T4: Training Goals and Outcomes

Regarding the training goals, cognitive functioning (f=19) should be targeted in the training intervention in the experts’ viewpoint while also addressing ADLs and mobility (f=3), addressing physical capabilities (f=3), and accounting for psychosocial factors (f=2), such as feelings of insecurity. However, the weighting of the training focus differs significantly between experts in different fields:

[...] higher order processes (i.e. divided attention or the ability to plan) are affected in most patients. Therefore, it is important to focus on these higher order cognitive functions.
[E-05: neuropsychologist]I think that the coupling of brain functions with physical functions is central. At the same time [...]it is important to focus on what is impaired. If the frontal lobe is impaired, it is certainly important to train executive functions, attention and inhibition.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]Primarily physical activation, especially that people get moving and walk. But also, to train the intuitive way of taking steps. [...] The cognitive aspects of the training have always played a subordinate role for me, but they were usually not decisive for the success of the therapy, as this was often trained differently, and I am not an expert in this.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]

When asking experts about the training goals of patients, ADLs and mobility (f=5) were the most frequently stated in addition to cognition (f=3) and physical functioning (f=2). In addition, psychosocial factors (f=2) have been reported to include socializing or having fun:

I had patients who wanted to continue training because the training made them more confident in their gait. They felt better balance after the training.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]The patients also see the cognitive aspects of the training, of course. [...] We often explain to the patients that falls prevention has a cognitive and physical aspect and that these aspects interact. Therefore, the patients mainly go to the training with the aim of improving their gait.
[E-07: physical and occupational therapist]Some people really know what’s going on and they know that they have a disease and that they can prevent or slow down the progression by doing physical activity and exergames. But then others don’t really know that they have cognitive deterioration and they’re just playing a game and having fun without specific training goals.
[E-09: exergaming researcher]

This is consistent with patients’ viewpoint who most frequently reported improving gait (f=6, n=5, 50%), memory (f=3, n=3, 38%), and balance (f=2, n=2, 25%) as their primary goal to increase their quality of life. In addition, patients reported being more active (f=1, n=1, 13%), increased functional abilities (ie, cooking; f=1, n=1, 13%), increased strength (f=1, n=1, 13%), or remaining independent in ADLs (f=1, n=1, 13%) as training goals:

It is mainly the memory. It is memory because it affects a lot of other things.
[P-01]It would be wonderful, if I could go for a walk in the forest again without falling down.
[P-02]I really want to remain independent. I definitely don’t want to become dependent on others.
[P-05]That I can keep things better in my head. That has diminished. That would be nice!
[P-06]I want to have more strength again to increase stability and be able to walk longer.
[P-08]T5: Exergame and Training ComponentsLocation

Regarding training location, the experts reported that the patients would either prefer individual training at home (f=3) or in a mixed setting, including training at home combined with training at a clinic (f=4). None of the experts stated that patients would prefer exercising at a clinic or training facility in general, as this is often associated with excessive time expenditure. Training at home was reported to be beneficial, because it represents a known environment that makes patients feel more secure. However, the experts also stated that patients may not be capable of performing exercises or exergames independently and therefore need guidance throughout each training session (f=4) or at least partially (f=9); for example, when starting up the system or in case of technical problems:

The advantage of training at home is that “it’s a known environment and they feel safer at home and also don’t have to travel.” However, “I would suggest that the help of a guiding therapist with experience will be necessary.”
[E-09: exergaming researcher]In a previous investigation [...], patients’ feedback was that 70% could imagine doing the training from home. [...] For MCI-Patients specifically, relatives may be involved. But in general, the need for home-based exergame training is there, I would say.
[E-08: project manager therapy]

This is also reflected in the outcomes of the question of whether patients would be capable of performing home-based exergame training; the experts mainly reported that patients are certainly capable (f=4) or should be capable of considering some concerns (f=9) to perform such a training program independently at home. The concerns that need to be considered include the improvement of game instructions (f=2), accessibility of a handrail or similar for safety support (f=2), and avoidance of technical problems (f=2) or the integration of a guided familiarization period (f=1) or support of a care professional or partner (f=2):

I think if the system would really work properly then you could use it at home. However, if you just have some minor technical problems is already like a no-go to use it at home at all.
[E-01: exergaming researcher]It would certainly be good if the patients could complete an accompanied training for a certain period of time in order to facilitate the transfer to training at home.
[E-04: exergaming researcher][...] some kind of adjustment of the instructions is needed [...], especially for this patient group and for independent training in the home-based setting. [...] The instructions have to be adapted in such a way that understanding can be achieved without someone having to stand next to the patients all the time.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]

Of those patients who responded to the question and had a clear preference regarding the training location, most (6/7, 86%) patients would clearly prefer to train individually at home, because it is less time consuming and more flexible. One patient did not have a clear preference; she simply wanted to perform the exercises where it was easiest for her and preferred group exercises:

For me, it is important that the training can be done independently at home. If I have to go to the doctor somewhere every time, it’s simply too much work.
[P-01]Preferably at home, if I can. Then I can also choose the time when I want to exercise. I have lived my whole life with a packed schedule. Now I want to be a little freer and more flexible.
[P-03]Safety

The experts reported an increased risk for falls, as patients with mNCD (1) are easily distractable and (2) have difficulties in self-assessment and impaired planning abilities. Therefore, it was recommended to use the handrail in the beginning to minimize the risk of falls (f=3), which was also requested by 1 patient. In the case of a home-based exergaming system—which may not have a handrail—thorough and clear safety instructions are recommended (f=1):

Especially in the beginning, until the patients have understood what it is all about, it is very important to instruct using the handrail.
[E-04: exergaming researcher]I definitely need a railing to prevent falls during training. I often fall down if I don’t have anything to hold on to.
[P-02]Instruction, Familiarization, and Guidance

As illustrated earlier, certain adaptations are required to enable a more independent use of the exergaming device. First, patients should be familiarized with the exergaming device and the corresponding games considering the following key elements: (1) start at an easy level (f=7), for example, by using the game “Simple” (f=4), (2) ensure that patients voluntarily try out the device (f=3), (3) ensure that you are not too confronting (f=2), (4) give patients enough time to familiarize with the new task (f=1), and (5) start with a reaction game, then progress to games for specific domains of neurocognitive function (f=1):

It is very important to start very slowly and at a low difficulty level until the patients can better assess their abilities on the “Senso”. […] Since the game “Simple” waits for a reaction from the individual, it is very suitable to start with.
[E-04: exergaming researcher]We always start with a reaction game so that the patients can learn the coupling of the cognitive-motor functions and learn to interact with the environment. Later on, we focus on specific cognitive functions.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]

Regarding the instructions, some adjustments are needed to improve comprehensibility. Currently, there is instructional text before starting each game. However, patients with mNCD have been reported to have limited comprehension of instructions. Therefore, adaptations are needed in the instructions of exergames in general and for a home-based exergaming system in particular. The experts mainly suggested to use step-by-step (f=3) instructions based on a combination of visual (ie, written instruction or video demonstration) and verbal instructions (f=4) guided by an experienced therapist (f=1). In case of more severely impaired patients or for home-based exergaming systems, it was suggested that practical demonstrations (f=2), video instructions (f=6) or even interactive “trial run” instructions (f=5) could improve comprehensibility of the games:

The transfer from the written instructions to the understanding of what is to be done in the game is sometimes difficult.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]Personally, I would replace the written instructions with a short (few seconds) video sequence showing the most important functions of the games.
[E-08: project manager therapy]I would recommend combining visual and verbal instructions. For example, through a visual presentation with additional step-by-step verbal instructions. Verbally we can “pick up” the patients very well and get a feeling whether the patients have understood the instructions.
[E-03: neuropsychologist][...], some kind of adjustment of the instructions is needed. [...] It is definitely important to pursue and use these adaptations, especially for this patient group and for independent training in the home-based setting”, because “in the case of more severe impairments, it is often necessary to demonstrate the games step by step by yourself. [...] In other gaming systems there is a short test phase with explanations and trial runs [...]. However, this would have to be offered as an option, since most patients will no longer need it after a few sessions.
[E-10: founder of an exergaming company]

Finally, when guiding patients through their training sessions, social support and guidance by a care professional or partner might be beneficial (f=3). However, it was also mentioned that this might be critical because of personal conflicts or patients’ psychological constraints (f=2):

Family members could play an important role in reminding and motivating patients to complete their training.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]I don’t think it’s always a good idea to include family members as guidance, because the pressure to perform gets higher for the patients, since they try to hide their impairments from others. A health care professional like a nurse for example or physical therapists would be better than a husband or wife, I think. They already have a lot of fights in the households, because things are not working out as they should.
[E-09: exergaming researcher]

From a patient’s perspective, all patients reported that they can imagine training alone, provided they had received thorough instructions and understood their tasks. One patient additionally requested regular support from a care professional or partner:

Yes, I think so. Once I learn that, I’m sure I can do it independently.
[P-03]If I am supported by you or by my partner, then I can certainly train partly independently.
[P-07]Exergame System and Content

Previous experiences of older adults with mNCD using the exergaming system “Senso” are illustrated earlier. Building on this, several game-specific adaptations were suggested by the experts (f=9):

More time should be provided between the balls so that the flood of information is reduced (it is often overwhelming when several balls are visible on the screen very quickly).
[E-07 (physical and occupational therapist): for the game “Targets”]In the initial phase, until patients’ have understood all the game tasks [...], the speed must definitely be reduced.
[E-06 (physical and occupational therapist): for the game “Habitats”]There are already enough opportunities to increase the task difficulty. [...] However, it is very important to note that the game difficulty is adjusted downwards so that it is easier to start the training.
[E-08: project manager therapy]

In addition to these game-specific adaptations, multiple novel game designs and elements have been suggested and discussed by focus groups to address patients’ needs optimally. In general, it has been recognized that there is a need for new games specifically targeting the neurocognitive functions of learning and memory (f=4) and executive functions (ie, working memory and cognitive inhibition; f=2). Specific game design suggestions were discussed for such a memory or working memory game. Additional suggestions for new game designs and elements include the use of music, addition of visual reminders to guide patients within the games, or adaptations in performance feedback:

With the “Senso”, a certain spectrum of neurocognitive function domains is covered. However, games for working memory, inhibition or memory are completely missing. In the case of memory, there is currently only one game available specifically targeting the training of short-term memory span.
[E-05: neuropsychologist]I think music would be very motivating for people with MCI or dementia also if is music from their youth or music they like. It’s also been described in the literature that music has so many good effects on people when they have heard a song that they liked before and they are singing that song.
[E-09: exergaming researcher]In addition, it would be good to include reminders, for example at the edge of the screen, which patients can use for orientation. [...] Additionally, [...] it would certainly be helpful here if the program not only displayed the performance curve, but also provided a reason or explanation.
[E-03: neuropsychologist]

As general requirements when designing new games, the experts recommended using simple graphics and ensuring good contrast (f=14), a comfortable relation, and good usability of the exergames (f=4) using easily comprehensible and clearly designed tasks (f=2) with a certain closeness to everyday life (f=7). Multimodal animations, including multisensory feedback (f=7), should additionally be integrated by focusing on positive reinforcement mechanisms (f=2) to motivate the patients during exergaming. In addition, it is important that the main task is in the center of the screen (f=1) and that only elements that are related to the game task are included (f=5). Moreover, too confronting performance feedback (f=1) and unexpected appearance or technical problems (f=2) should be avoided:

It is very important to create a good contrast. [...] It’s generally important for the older population to keep the graphic representation as simple as possible, because for older people, the game is not characterized by great graphics, but by the game task as such. The main importance is that the right level of challenge is offered.
[E-08: project manager therapy]It is much better to present a simple graphic and focus on the aspects that need to be trained. [...] unnecessary graphic gimmicks should be avoided!
[E-04: exergaming researcher]It is important to have a main action that is in the center of the screen and to ensure that the player will have primary task in the center. If you put any secondary tasks into the games, it can be confusing for the patients.
[E-02: exergaming researcher]Spontaneously, I would say that games close to everyday life are more popular. [...] These games were much better received than abstractly structured games (“visual exploration tasks”).
[E-03: neuropsychologist]My experience so far is that games that are designed to be more relevant to everyday life (and simpler) work better. Therefore, new game designs should be based on what patients know from their everyday lives.
[E-06: physical and occupational therapist]Training Components

The recommended exercise frequency ranged from

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif