Virtual reality telerehabilitation for spatial neglect post-stroke: perspectives from stroke survivors, carers and clinicians

1. Introduction

Around 20-40% of the 1.2 million stroke survivors currently living in the UK (Stroke Association, 2018) are estimated to have spatial neglect (Ringman et al., 2004; Rowe et al., 2019; Puig-Pijoan et al., 2018). Spatial neglect is a severe neuropsychological syndrome generally defined as a failure to respond to stimuli on the side of the space opposite to the side of the brain lesion. The clinical impact of spatial neglect is substantial with 40% of people showing neglect symptoms even more than a year post-stroke (Nijboer, Kollen & Kwakkel, 2013) and its presence being a major predictor of disability (e.g., Gillen, Tennen & McKee, 2005). Unfortunately, there is no specific recommended rehabilitation for the condition (Azouvi, Jacquin-Courtois & Luauté, 2017; Bowen et al., 2013). Yet, previous research has found that stroke survivors, carers and clinicians identified visual problems as one of the top 10 priorities in stroke research (Pollock et al., 2014).

The fast advancement of affordable, user-friendly and portable virtual reality (VR) technology means that it can be more easily applied in clinical settings (Castelvecchi, 2016). In fact, several VR interventions have been recently introduced for cognitive and/or physical impairments for various conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease (Dockx et al., 2016), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI; Maggio et al., 2019) and stroke (Laver et al., 2017; Warland et al., 2019). VR enables a user to interact with a virtual environment, using either immersive (e.g. wearing VR headsets) or non-immersive technology (e.g. presents a virtual/computerized environment without being immersed within it). VR presents many advantages when compared to traditional rehabilitation including the ability to create rich sensory environments and replicate real-world situations within safe conditions (e.g. city; Cipresso et al., 2014; Ogourtsova et al., 2017), the ability to boost enjoyment, confidence and enthusiasm levels (Thornton et al., 2005; Pietrzak, Pullman & McGuire, 2014) and facilitate self-administration of rehabilitation (‘telerehabilitation’) while objectively monitoring therapy adherence remotely (Burdea, 2003; Threapleton, Drummond & Standen, 2016). Moreover, telerehabilitation can benefit patients living in remote locations and can be cost-effective when compared to one-to-one rehabilitation (Peretti et al., 2017).

The development of VR rehabilitation for spatial neglect is still in its infancy. To date, studies in spatial neglect have explored both immersive and non-immersive VR including real-world tasks such as navigation and cooking (Ogourtsova et al., 2018; Tobler-Ammann et al., 2017) and visual search tasks (Yasuda et al., 2017; Cipresso et al., 2014). Even though several VR therapies have been introduced for neurorehabilitation, not much is known about the views of stroke survivors, their carers or clinicians regarding their usability and acceptability (e.g., Threapelton, Drummond & Standen, 2016). The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of end-users about non-immersive, self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect. To the best of our knowledge, only one study has explored perspectives of using VR in spatial neglect but only investigated VR use for assessing neglect and only collected data from clinicians (Ogourtsova, Archambault & Lamontagne, 2019). Ogourtsova and colleagues used focus groups and interviews with clinicians and identified a series of barriers and facilitators including equipment (e.g., cost), client suitability (age), personal and institutional factors (e.g. familiarity with VR).

In the present mixed-methods study, we gathered perspectives on the use of self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect from clinicians but also, importantly, from stroke survivors and their carers. Working directly with end-users our aims were to 1) identify any facilitators or barriers of use and 2) produce recommendations that may improve future development (Threapleton, Drummond & Standen, 2016) and, ultimately, enhance adherence, efficacy and implementation into clinical practise (Brouns et al., 2018).

2.2 Procedure

We carried out a mixed methods study using focus groups and semi-structured interviews combined with neuropsychological assessments and questionnaires (see flowchart in Figure 2). Before beginning focus group discussions, the moderator delivered a short presentation about the focus group guidelines (Vaugh, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996), study rationale and VR. Lead author and research associate working on the project (BSc, MSc) with experience of running a previous pilot focus group, conducted all focus groups and interviews. Following this, participants tried (for the first time) non-immersive forms of VR telerehabilitation (see section 2.3) and were encouraged to comment on this. The focus group discussions followed 10 semi-structured questions and unscripted follow-up questions to further explore certain perspectives. Example of questions included: What did you find enjoyable in the virtual reality games? How did you find the feedback you received during the virtual reality games? What do you think about using this equipment and games at home or in clinic? (see supplementary materials for all questions). Individual interviews were carried out with three clinicians who could not attend the clinician focus group following the same procedure as the focus groups. Both focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the lead author.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

(A) Set-up of C-SIGHT in a home setting, (B) display when using ‘Boxing’, (C) ‘Bulleyes and Barriers’, and (D)‘In the kitchen’ in ‘VirtualRehab’ (by Evolv Technologies).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Flowchart of study for stroke survivors and carers (A) and clinicians (B).

Following the focus group/interviews, to measure the usability of the VR telerehabilitation shown, all participants completed the System Usability Scale (which included questions such as ‘I thought the system was easy to use’; Brooke, 1996; Meldrum et al., 2012; Pei, Chen, Wong & Tseng, 2017). Moreover, participants also completed the ‘technology usage questionnaire’ (adapted from Vekiri & Chronaky, 2008) to investigate the frequency and variation of technology used by participants, including previous experience with VR. In addition, to explore the acceptance of using VR in their workplace (Ogourtsova et al., 2019), the clinician group completed the ‘Unified theory of acceptance and use of virtual reality questionnaire’ (Venkatesh, Davis & Davis, 2003). Finally, during the home visit for stroke survivors we collected information about home resources (WiFi, room size, TV size, TV model, table size).

3 Results

3.2 Quantitative data

3.2.1 System Usability Scale (SUS)

All participants gave an adequate SUS score regarding the VR telerehabilitation tools for spatial neglect: stroke survivors (62; ok), carers (74.2; good) and clinicians (67.5; ok). This indicates that the self-administered VR telerehabilitation was acceptable for all participants (Bangor, Kortum, & Miller, 2008; Bangor, Kortum & Miller, 2009).

3.2.2 Technology-usage questionnaire

All but two stroke survivors (SS7, due to severe neglect symptoms) reported owning a mobile phone or smartphone. Clinicians and carers reported using a laptop/computer daily or 2-4 times a week, whereas stroke survivors’ computer usage varied from daily to rarely. Only one stroke survivor played computer games daily. All stroke survivors and the majority of clinicians had never tried VR before the present study (see Figure 3A). More than 67% of stroke survivors and carers were extremely interested in using VR in their rehabilitation and 66% of clinicians were very interested (see Figure 3B). All participants were mostly confident that they could use VR for rehabilitation (see Figure 3C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

(A) What is your current experience with Virtual Reality?, (B) How interested are you in using virtual reality as a method of rehabilitation?, (C) How confident do you feel about virtual reality being a useful rehabilitation after brain injury?

3.2.3 ‘Unified theory of acceptance and use of virtual reality’ for spatial neglect questionnaire

All clinicians (except one) agreed that VR rehabilitation could improve their work performance and effort (see Q1-5 in Fig.4). Clinician’s reported mixed views on whether members of their organization would support the use of VR rehabilitation (see Q6-9 in Fig.4). The majority of clinicians (80%) reported having adequate resources and knowledge to use VR rehabilitation in clinical practice (see Q10-16 in Fig.4). Finally, most clinicians (67%) agreed that they intend to use VR rehabilitation if available in the next year (see Q17 in Fig.4). Notably, one clinician noted on questionnaire that they would plan to use VR rehabilitation in the next 12 months “if I had the support from management and time to use”.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

‘Unified theory of acceptance and use of virtual reality’ for spatial neglect clinician questionnaire’

Home resources

All stroke survivors had a television larger than 32 inches and Wi-Fi which would enable them to run VR telerehabilitation from their homes. Moreover, all stroke survivors had an average of 5.3ft in front of their television which would allow them to use the motion tracking sensor to record body movements.

3. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore perspectives on self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect with stroke survivors, carers and clinicians. We identified three barriers and four facilitators of using self-administered VR rehabilitation for spatial neglect which should be considered in future studies to increase its acceptability and usability. Importantly, this mixed-methods design revealed that end-users were accepting and willing to use self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect.

Focus groups and interviews identified the need for short instructions and use of multiple formats (e.g. pictures, large font; similar to Wentink et al., 2019). This is important since those using self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect (e.g. C-SIGHT) may experience difficulty with functional reading (associated with increased neglect severity; Galletta et al., 2014). Additionally, considering around 30% of stroke survivors are affected by aphasia (impaired language and communication function; Dickey et al., 2010) the provision of pictorial and/or auditory instructions would mean these stroke survivors would not be excluded from using self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect.

Interestingly, it seemed two clinicians and two stroke survivors had an expectation that those with little experience with technology or of older age are not interested in using VR (e.g. Farrow & Reid, 2004; Ogourtsova et al., 2019; Wentink et al., 2019). Indeed, one stroke survivor with less technological experience did express a concern that VR telerehabilitation would not be accepted if it was difficult to set-up. However, most of the sample (many reporting little technological experience) did not acknowledge this as a barrier. For example, one stroke survivor (SS3) and carer (C2) felt confident about setting up the equipment since they had previous experience (i.e, they used a Wii Fit). In fact, more than half of the sample were very interested and felt confident in using VR telerehabilitation and rated its usability as acceptable, regardless of their technology usage/experience.

Participants valued the features facilitated by VR equipment (e.g. remote monitoring of adherence, feedback) and would be willing to use it in their homes. However, some stroke survivors believed user acceptance could be affected by the risk of security breaches and the presence of the motion-tracking camera in their home (e.g. aesthetics; Threapleton, Drummond & Standen, 2016). In this study, our sample had resources in their homes to support self-administered VR, nevertheless it is important to consider this since the other users’ homes may not have these resources due to cost (e.g. large TV). Therefore, changes may have to be made (e.g. move furniture/items) to accommodate the equipment, which may not be acceptable or feasible to the user (e.g. if they use assistive equipment; Threapleton, Drummond & Standen, 2016; Mountain, Wilson & Eccleston, 2010).

Previous findings have found that clinicians report that the feedback from VR is beneficial in motor learning principles and increasing therapy usage (Schmid, Glassel & Schuster-Amft, 2016; Finley and Combs, 2013). Similarly, our study found feedback provided by self-administered VR telerehabilitation (e.g. auditory prompts, visual progress) was seen as a major facilitator of use (e.g. Burdea, 2003). One stroke survivor felt feedback offered by self-administered VR telerehabilitation would increase the enjoyment and engagement while carrying out “ordinarily boring” (SS3) exercises/tasks. Among feelings of engagement and motivation, participants believed users might feel an increase in competence, confidence, independence and ownership from using self-administered VR telerehabilitation. Farrow and Reid (2004) found similar results with stroke survivors who felt VR enabled them to engage in activities they could no longer do, increasing feelings of competence, control, and positive feeling of self (Farrow & Reid, 2004; Pallesen et al., 2018). Considering one-third of stroke survivors report experiencing symptoms of post-stroke depression (Stroke Association, 2018; Hackett et al., 2014), this is an important perceived benefit of using VR telerehabilitation.

Stroke clinicians recognised that there was a need for a rehabilitation for spatial neglect, especially one with remote monitoring/accessibility to user performance facilitated by VR (Burdea, 2003; Ogourtsova et al., 2019). In line with this, stroke survivors and carers believed that the self-administered aspect of VR telerehabilitation would increase the accessibility of rehabilitation for spatial neglect. Stroke survivors in this study believed offering self-administered VR telerehabilitation to stroke survivors after discharge could help those with decreased mobility and increase their psychological wellbeing. This is an important perceived benefit since around 45% of stroke survivors report feeling abandoned after discharge (Stroke Association, 2018). Reflecting on one carer’s comments on convenience, offering self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect at home could reduce the cost and time for carers (Tindall & Huebner, 2009).

We collected perspectives from a multidisciplinary group of stroke clinicians (occupational therapists, healthcare assistant, physiotherapist and clinical psychologist). Previous research has suggested the use of a VR rehabilitation is influenced by the clinician’s current technology experience (Burdea, 2003). Although our clinicians reported a low to moderate technology usage, they were open and positive about using VR telerehabilitation and believed it could improve their performance during clinical practice in line with previous studies (Ogoutsova et al., 2019). While most clinicians had adequate resources to support VR telerehabilitation usage, clinicians working in an acute setting (e.g. hospital) anticipated more difficulty since there were limited resources to facilitate VR use (e.g. lack of working computers, space, television screens). Facilitating conditions such as these are a powerful predictor of a clinician’s intention to use a new technology (Liu et al., 2015) and therefore are an important factor to consider when planning implementation of VR telerehabilitation into clinical practice. Perspectives collected from our multidisciplinary group are promising indications that stroke clinicians within different settings would be willing to implement self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect with their patients.

Some studies have explored clinician perspectives on VR rehabilitation for upper limb training (Schmid, Glassel & Schuster-Amft, 2016), exergames (Nguyen et al., 2019) and immersive games (Farrow & Reid, 2004). However, few (e.g. Pallesen et al., 2018) benefit from exploring perspectives from both clinicians and stroke survivors. Moreover, despite the emergence of using VR rehabilitation interventions for spatial neglect (e.g. Ogourtsova et al., 2018; Tobler-Ammann et al., 2017; Yasuda et al., 2017; Cipresso et al., 2014) few studies qualitatively explore perspectives end-users. The current study used a mix-methods which offered a holistic approach (Klinke et al., 2016) to explore stroke survivor, carer and clinician’s perspectives, whilst objectively measuring factors (e.g. neglect, stroke severity, technology usage, resources) which might influence perspectives.

However, the current study has limitations. Due to time constraints only one focus group was held with clinicians. This could be considered a limitation since one large focus group with all six clinicians may have facilitated deeper exploration of ideas and opinions with others (Folch-Lyon & Trost, 1981). Despite our relatively small sample size (albeit in line with sample sizes of similar studies; Lane et al., 2019; Ogourtsova et al., 2019; Pallesen et al., 2018; Niraji, Wright & Powell, 2018), we were able to collect the personal perspectives of various end-users (stroke survivors with and without spatial neglect, carers of different ages and multidisciplinary stroke clinicians). Moreover, our findings are both original (e.g. first to explore perspectives on self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect) and consistent with previous studies (e.g. Ogourtsova et al., 2019).

Future studies should carry out a usability study to test the equipment and set-up of self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect in stroke survivor’s homes (e.g. Warland et al., 2019). This would produce both ecologically valid and constructive feedback on the feasibility and acceptability of using self-administered VR telerehabilitation in user’s homes. Additionally, there is a need for more qualitative and mixed methods studies exploring stroke survivor, carer and clinician perspectives on both non-VR and VR rehabilitation techniques for spatial neglect. Identifying factors which motivate and engage stroke survivors with spatial neglect provides us with a better understanding on how to increase therapy adherence and enjoyment.

Based on the perspectives from end-users in this study, we have produced some practical recommendations for future development of self-administered VR telerehabilitation for spatial neglect. To address concerns regarding user instructions we recommend using short text presented gradually and providing a choice of format for users (e.g. pictorial, written and/or auditory). Secondly, all efforts should be made to reduce the volume, complexity of equipment used (such as, using existing equipment in participant’s homes; e.g. television). Concerns could be reduced by labelling equipment (including cables), providing a clear, comprehensive demonstration of set-up and video or step-by-step instructions (with pictures). Embedding built in support (e.g. ‘help’ button, contact number) and online forum for users to ask each other questions are also possible steps to take. Thirdly, security concerns can be reduced by ensuring transparency of the use of each piece of equipment and recommending users switch off motion sensor cameras when not in use. Finally, the user should be provided with a choice to personalise their telerehabilitation when possible, such as providing a choice of visual or auditory feedback and music.

Declaration of interest statement

The authors report no declaration of interest.