In this paper, we conduct a literature survey on various virtual reality (VR) treatments in psychiatry. We collected 36 studies that used VR to provide clinical trials or therapies for patients with psychiatric disorders. In order to gain a better understanding of the management of pain and stress, we first investigate VR applications for patients to alleviate pain and stress during immersive activities in a virtual environment. VR exposure therapies are particularly effective for anxiety, provoking realistic reactions to feared stimuli. On top of that, exposure therapies with simulated images are beneficial for patients with psychiatric disorders such as phobia and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Moreover, VR environments have shown the possibility of changing depression, cognition, even social functions. We review empirical evidence from VR-based treatments on psychiatric illnesses such as dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), schizophrenia and autism. Through cognitive training and social skill training, rehabilitation through VR therapies helps patients to improve their quality of life. Recent advances in VR technology also demonstrate potential abilities to address cognitive and functional impairments in dementia. In terms of the different types of VR systems, we discuss the feasibility of the technology within different stages of dementia as well as the methodological limitations. Although there is room for improvement, its widespread adoption in psychiatry is yet to occur due to technical drawbacks such as motion sickness and dry eyes, as well as user issues such as preoccupation and addiction. However, it is worth mentioning that VR systems relatively easily deliver virtual environments with well-controlled sensory stimuli. In the future, VR systems may become an innovative clinical tool for patients with specific psychiatric symptoms.

/pdf/a-literature-overview-of-virtual-reality-vr-in-treatment-of-1eig9hqcgq.pdf

A Literature Overview of Virtual Reality (VR) in Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: Recent Advances and Limitations.

OBJECTIVE Since the mid-1990s, a significant scientific literature has evolved regarding the outcomes from the use of what we now refer to as clinical virtual reality (VR) This use of VR simulation technology has produced encouraging results when applied to address cognitive, psychological, motor, and functional impairments across a wide range of clinical health conditions This article addresses the question, "Is clinical VR ready for primetime?" METHOD After a brief description of the various forms of VR technology, we discuss the trajectory of clinical VR over the last 20 years and summarize the basic assets that VR offers for creating clinical applications The discussion then addresses the question of readiness in terms of the theoretical basis for clinical VR assets, the research to date, the pragmatic factors regarding availability, usability, and costs of clinical VR content/systems, and the ethical issues for the safe use of VR with clinical populations RESULTS Our review of the theoretical underpinnings and research findings to date leads to the prediction that clinical VR will have a significant impact on future research and practice Pragmatic issues that can influence adoption across many areas of psychology also appear favorable, but professional guidelines will be needed to promote its safe and ethical use CONCLUSIONS Although there is still much research needed to advance the science in this area, we strongly believe that clinical VR applications will become indispensable tools in the toolbox of psychological researchers and practitioners and will only grow in relevance and popularity in the future (PsycINFO Database Record

Is clinical virtual reality ready for primetime

Background: Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an efficacious treatment modality for a wide range of health conditions. However, despite encouraging outcomes from early stage research, a consensus for the best way to develop and evaluate VR treatments within a scientific framework is needed. Objective: We aimed to develop a methodological framework with input from an international working group in order to guide the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and communication of trials that develop and test VR treatments. Methods: A group of 21 international experts was recruited based on their contributions to the VR literature. The resulting Virtual Reality Clinical Outcomes Research Experts held iterative meetings to seek consensus on best practices for the development and testing of VR treatments. Results: The interactions were transcribed, and key themes were identified to develop a scientific framework in order to support best practices in methodology of clinical VR trials. Using the Food and Drug Administration Phase I-III pharmacotherapy model as guidance, a framework emerged to support three phases of VR clinical study designs—VR1, VR2, and VR3. VR1 studies focus on content development by working with patients and providers through the principles of human-centered design. VR2 trials conduct early testing with a focus on feasibility, acceptability, tolerability, and initial clinical efficacy. VR3 trials are randomized, controlled studies that evaluate efficacy against a control condition. Best practice recommendations for each trial were provided. Conclusions: Patients, providers, payers, and regulators should consider this best practice framework when assessing the validity of VR treatments.

Recommendations for Methodology of Virtual Reality Clinical Trials in Health Care by an International Working Group: Iterative Study

To evaluate the use of virtual reality (VR) therapies as a clinical tool for the management of acute and chronic pain. Recent articles support the hypothesis that VR therapies can effectively distract patients who suffer from chronic pain and from acute pain stimulated in trials. Clinical studies yield promising results in the application of VR therapies to a variety of acute and chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia, phantom limb pain, and regional specific pain from past injuries and illnesses. Current management techniques for acute and chronic pain, such as opioids and physical therapy, are often incomplete or ineffective. VR trials demonstrate a potential to redefine the approach to treating acute and chronic pain in the clinical setting. Patient immersion in interactive virtual reality provides distraction from painful stimuli and can decrease an individual’s perception of the pain. In this review, we discuss the use of VR to provide patient distraction from acute pain induced from electrical, thermal, and pressure conditions. We also discuss the application of VR technologies to treat various chronic pain conditions in both outpatient and inpatient settings.

Virtual Reality as a Clinical Tool for Pain Management

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a system of wireless, interrelated, and connected digital devices that can collect, send, and store data over a network without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction. The IoT promises many benefits to streamlining and enhancing health care delivery to proactively predict health issues and diagnose, treat, and monitor patients both in and out of the hospital. Worldwide, government leaders and decision makers are implementing policies to deliver health care services using technology and more so in response to the novel COVID-19 pandemic. It is now becoming increasingly important to understand how established and emerging IoT technologies can support health systems to deliver safe and effective care. The aim of this viewpoint paper is to provide an overview of the current IoT technology in health care, outline how IoT devices are improving health service delivery, and outline how IoT technology can affect and disrupt global health care in the next decade. The potential of IoT-based health care is expanded upon to theorize how IoT can improve the accessibility of preventative public health services and transition our current secondary and tertiary health care to be a more proactive, continuous, and coordinated system. Finally, this paper will deal with the potential issues that IoT-based health care generates, barriers to market adoption from health care professionals and patients alike, confidence and acceptability, privacy and security, interoperability, standardization and remuneration, data storage, and control and ownership. Corresponding enablers of IoT in current health care will rely on policy support, cybersecurity-focused guidelines, careful strategic planning, and transparent policies within health care organizations. IoT-based health care has great potential to improve the efficiency of the health system and improve population health.

/pdf/the-internet-of-things-impact-and-implications-for-health-zt29aivg3f.pdf

The Internet of Things: Impact and Implications for Health Care Delivery.

Background: Improvements in software and design and reduction in cost have made virtual reality (VR) a practical tool for immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multisensory experiences that distract patients from painful stimuli. Objective: The objective of the study was to measure the impact of a onetime 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D) distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods: We conducted a comparative cohort study in a large, urban teaching hospital in medical inpatients with an average pain score of ≥3/10 from any cause. Patients with nausea, vomiting, dementia, motion sickness, stroke, seizure, and epilepsy and those placed in isolation were excluded. Patients in the intervention cohort viewed a 3D VR experience designed to reduce pain using the Samsung Gear Oculus VR headset; control patients viewed a high-definition, 2D nature video on a 14-inch bedside screen. Pre- and postintervention pain scores were recorded. Difference-in-difference scores and the proportion achieving a half standard deviation pain response were compared between groups. Results: There were 50 subjects per cohort (N=100). The mean pain reduction in the VR cohort was greater than in controls (−1.3 vs −0.6 points, respectively; P=.008). A total of 35 (65%) patients in the VR cohort achieved a pain response versus 40% of controls (P=.01; number needed to treat=4). No adverse events were reported from VR. Conclusions: Use of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. These results indicate that VR is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pain management in the acute inpatient setting; future randomized trials should confirm benefit with different visualizations and exposure periods. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pJ1P644S) [JMIR Ment Health 2017;4(1):e9]

Virtual Reality for Management of Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Controlled Trial

Objectives Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an effective, drug-free tool for pain management, but there is a lack of randomized, controlled data evaluating its effectiveness in hospitalized patients. We sought to measure the impact of on-demand VR versus “health and wellness” television programming for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with an average pain score of ≥3 out of 10 points. Patients in the experimental group received a library of 21 VR experiences administered using the Samsung Gear Oculus headset; control patients viewed specialized television programming to promote health and wellness. Clinical staff followed usual care; study interventions were not protocolized. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain using a numeric rating scale, as recorded by nursing staff during usual care. Pre- and post-intervention pain scores were compared immediately after initial treatment and after 48- and 72-hours. Results There were 120 subjects (61 VR; 59 control). The mean within-subject difference in immediate pre- and post-intervention pain scores was larger in the VR group (-1.72 points; SD 3.56) than in the control group (-0.46 points; SD 3.01); this difference was significant in favor of VR (P < .04). When limited to the subgroup of patients with severe baseline pain (≥7 points), the effect of VR was more pronounced vs. control (-3.04, SD 3.75 vs. -0.93, SD 2.16 points; P = .02). In regression analyses adjusting for pre-intervention pain, time, age, gender, and type of pain, VR yielded a .59 (P = .03) and .56 (P = .04) point incremental reduction in pain versus control during the 48- and 72-hour post-intervention periods, respectively. Conclusions VR significantly reduces pain versus an active control condition in hospitalized patients. VR is most effective for severe pain. Future trials should evaluate standardized order sets that interpose VR as an early non-drug option for analgesia.

/pdf/virtual-reality-for-management-of-pain-in-hospitalized-47hhcm57jf.pdf

Amber Howard

Papers

Virtual Reality for Management of Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Controlled Trial

Virtual reality for management of pain in hospitalized patients: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial

Virtual Reality Reduces Abdominal Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Controlled Trial