Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) has proven effective in the treatment of specific phobias and trauma particularly when in-vivo exposure therapy might be costly (e.g. fear of flying, combat scenes). Similarly, VR has been associated with improvement of chronic pain and of acute pain during medical procedures. Despite its effectiveness as a healthcare tool, VR technology is not well-integrated into common practice. This qualitative study aims to explore the provider perception of the value of VR and identify barriers to VR implementation among healthcare providers. METHODS: A 66-item self-report survey was created to examine application of VR to clinical practice, perceived value of this treatment, ease of learning the technology, billing considerations, and other obstacles. 128 providers (MDs and PhDs) who were located in the United States and had used VR as a therapeutic tool in the past year were identified through research papers, as well as user lists and news articles from VR application websites. Of the 128 providers contacted, 17% (22) completed our online self-report measure. Of these, 13% of respondents (N = 17) completed greater than 75% of the questionnaire and were considered completers. Provider responses were collected over a one-month period and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: The majority of providers were from an academic institution (n = 12, 70.6%), and all providers practiced in the outpatient setting. Providers most commonly reported using VR for the treatment of acute pain and/or anxiety related to medical procedures (n = 11, 64.7%), followed by specific phobia (n = 6, 35.3%) and social phobia (n = 6, 35.3%). All providers agreed VR is a valuable tool they would recommend to colleagues. The majority (n = 15, 93.8%) believed VR helped their patients progress in treatment, compared with other methods. Providers cited the ability to individualize treatment (n = 14, 87.5%) and increase patient engagement (n = 15, 93.8%) as main benefits of VR. A minority reported negative feedback from patients about content (n = 4, 25%) or about the technology in general (n = 6, 37.5%), whereas all reported some form of positive feedback. The slight majority (n = 10, 58.8%) of providers did not find transitioning to VR difficult. Of those who did, cost was the most commonly cited barrier (n = 6). Regarding reimbursement, only 17.6% (n = 3) of providers reported the ability to bill for VR sessions. Most providers (n = 15, 88.2%) received training on their VR platform which they found beneficial. Comparing the trained and untrained groups found no significant difference in VR comfort level (p = 0.5058), the value of VR in practice (p = 0.551) or whether providers would recommend VR to others (p = 0.551), though sample sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: In corroboration with previous research, this study demonstrates that VR is well-received by patients and providers, allowing increased patient engagement and treatment individualization. However, associated costs, including an inability to bill for this service, can present a barrier to further implementation. These findings will guide further development of virtual reality as a standardized tool in psychiatry and pain management.

Effect of a Virtual Reality-Enhanced Exercise and Education Intervention on Patient Engagement and Learning in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is clinically proven to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, many eligible patients do not enroll in treatment. Furthermore, many enrolled patients do not complete their full course of treatment. This is greatly influenced by socioeconomic factors but is also because of patients' lack of understanding of the importance of their care and a lack of motivation to maintain attendance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the potential benefits of virtual reality (VR) walking trails within CR treatment, specifically with regard to patient knowledge retention, satisfaction with treatment, and the overall attendance of treatment sessions. METHODS: New CR patients were enrolled and randomized on a rolling basis to either the control group or intervention group. Intervention patients completed their time on the treadmill with VR walking trails, which included audio-recorded education, whereas control patients completed the standard of care therapy. Both groups were assisted by nursing staff for all treatment sessions. Primary outcomes were determined by assessing 6-minute walk test improvement. In addition, secondary outcomes of patients' cardiac knowledge and satisfaction were assessed via a computer-based questionnaire; patient adherence to the recommended number of sessions was also monitored. Cardiac knowledge assessment included a prerehabilitation education quiz, and the same quiz was repeated at patients' final visit and again at the 2-month follow-up. The satisfaction questionnaire was completed at the final visit. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and May 2019, 72 patients were enrolled-41 in the intervention group and 31 in the control group. On the basis of the results of the prerehabilitation and postrehabilitation 6-minute walk test, no significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups (P=.64). No statistical differences were observed between groups in terms of education (P=.86) or satisfaction (P=.32) at any time point. The control group had statistically more favorable rates of attendance, as determined by the risk group comparison (P=.02) and the comparison of the rates for completing the minimum number of sessions (P=.046), but no correlation was observed between the study group and reasons for ending treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although no improvements were seen in the VR intervention group over the control group, it is worth noting that limitations in the study design may have influenced these outcomes, not the medium itself. Furthermore, the qualitative information suggests that patients may have indeed enjoyed their experience with VR, even though quantitative satisfaction data did not capture this. Further considerations for how and when VR should be applied to CR are suggested in this paper. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945201; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03945201.