ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Children's and young people's perspectives on extended reality in paediatric rehabilitation: A qualitative study.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore children's and young people's experiences with extended reality (XR) in rehabilitation, their perceptions of its benefits and challenges, and their visions for its future integration.
methodA qualitative, interpretive, descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and focus groups with children and young people who had used XR in rehabilitation. Thematic analysis using an inductive approach was conducted by an interdisciplinary team (including a research partner).
resultsTwenty-eight participants aged 6 to 20 years (mean = 12 years [SD 3 years 8 months]) were included. The five themes were: (1) If we play it at home, let's use it in rehab! Participants perceived XR as a familiar tool, naturally extendable to clinical settings; (2) Gaming for engagement. Participants described XR games as fun and motivating, increasing adherence; (3) Gaming for gains, that is, XR's therapeutic value. Participants described it as an effective tool that can support different rehabilitation goals; (4) Power to play: how XR can empower us. XR fostered a sense of empowerment; (5) Beyond play: challenges. Challenges were identified, including adverse events and redefining the therapist's role.
interpretationParticipants perceived XR for rehabilitation as both logical and necessary. Future rehabilitation models should integrate children's and young people's perspectives and prioritize engaging, inclusive usability across clinical and home settings.
Identifiers
42249705What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.