Games! What are they good for? The Struggle of Serious Game Adoption for Rehabilitation
Maria Micaela Fonseca, Nuno Fachada, Micael Sousa, Jorge Oliveira,, Pedro Rodrigues, Sara Sousa, Claudia Quaresma, and Phil Lopes

TL;DR
This paper examines the challenges and barriers to adopting serious games in rehabilitation, emphasizing the need for evidence-based, engaging, and co-created solutions to improve their effectiveness and acceptance.
Contribution
It identifies key gaps in serious game adoption for rehabilitation and advocates for a collaborative, evidence-based approach to develop more engaging therapeutic games.
Findings
Therapists face barriers like limited training and evidence on effectiveness.
Repetitive exercises in games reduce client motivation.
Co-creation with stakeholders is essential for progress.
Abstract
The field of serious games for health has grown significantly, demonstrating effectiveness in various clinical contexts such as stroke, spinal cord injury, and degenerative neurological diseases. Despite their potential benefits, therapists face barriers to adopting serious games in rehabilitation, including limited training and game literacy, concerns about cost and equipment availability, and a lack of evidence-based research on game effectiveness. Serious games for rehabilitation often involve repetitive exercises, which can be tedious and reduce motivation for continued rehabilitation, treating clients as passive recipients of clinical outcomes rather than players. This study identifies gaps and provides essential insights for advancing serious games in rehabilitation, aiming to enhance their engagement for clients and effectiveness as a therapeutic tool. Addressing these challenges…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
