Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(11): e17980, 2020 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33136055

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality is increasingly being utilized by clinicians to facilitate analgesia and anxiolysis within an inpatient setting. There is however, a lack of a clinically relevant review to guide its use for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current evidence for the efficacy of virtual reality as an analgesic in the management of acute pain and anxiolysis in an inpatient setting. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted up to and including January 2019 on PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms included virtual reality, vr, and pain. Primary articles with a focus on acute pain in the clinical setting were considered for the review. Primary outcome measures included degree of analgesia afforded by virtual reality therapy, degree of anxiolysis afforded by virtual reality therapy, effect of virtual reality on physiological parameters, side effects precipitated by virtual reality, virtual reality content type, and type of equipment utilized. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this systematic review; 67% (12/18) of studies demonstrated significant reductions in pain with the utilization of virtual reality; 44% (8/18) of studies assessed the effects of virtual reality on procedural anxiety, with 50% (4/8) of these demonstrating significant reductions; 28% (5/18) of studies screened for side effects with incidence rates of 0.5% to 8%; 39% (7/18) of studies evaluated the effects of virtual reality on autonomic arousal as a biomarker of pain, with 29% (2/7) demonstrating significant changes; 100% (18/18) of studies utilized a head mounted display to deliver virtual reality therapy, with 50% being in active form (participants interacting with the environment) and 50% being in passive form (participants observing the content only). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that virtual reality therapy can be applied to facilitate analgesia for acute pain in a variety of inpatient settings. Its effects, however, are likely to vary by patient population and indication. This highlights the need for individualized pilot testing of virtual reality therapy's effects for each specific clinical use case rather than generalizing its use for the broad indication of facilitating analgesia. In addition, virtual reality therapy has the added potential of concurrently providing procedural anxiolysis, thereby improving patient experience and cooperation, while being associated with a low incidence of side effects (nausea, vomiting, eye strain, and dizziness). Furthermore, findings indicated a head mounted display should be utilized to deliver virtual reality therapy in a clinical setting with a slight preference for active over passive virtual reality for analgesia. There, however, appears to be insufficient evidence to substantiate the effect of virtual reality on autonomic arousal, and this should be considered at best to be for investigational uses, at present.


Subject(s)
Acute Pain/therapy , Anxiety/therapy , Pain Management/methods , Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy/methods , Humans
2.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0234187, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32497090

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has created an extraordinary global health crisis. However, with limited understanding of the effects of COVID-19 during pregnancy, clinicians and patients are forced to make uninformed decisions. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the literature and report the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from November 1st, 2019 and March 28th, 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary studies, reported in English, investigating COVID-19-positive pregnant women and reporting their pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data in relation to clinical presentation, investigation were maternal and neonatal outcomes were extracted and analysed using summary statistics. Hypothesis testing was performed to examine differences in time-to-delivery. Study quality was assessed using the ICROMS tool. MAIN RESULTS: Of 73 identified articles, nine were eligible for inclusion (n = 92). 67.4% (62/92) of women were symptomatic at presentation. RT-PCR was inferior to CT-based diagnosis in 31.7% (26/79) of cases. Maternal mortality rate was 0% and only one patient required intensive care and ventilation. 63.8% (30/47) had preterm births, 61.1% (11/18) fetal distress and 80% (40/50) a Caesarean section. 76.92% (11/13) of neonates required NICU admission and 42.8% (40/50) had a low birth weight. There was one indeterminate case of potential vertical transmission. Mean time-to-delivery was 4.3±3.08 days (n = 12) with no difference in outcomes (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-positive pregnant women present with fewer symptoms than the general population and may be RT-PCR negative despite having signs of viral pneumonia. The incidence of preterm births, low birth weight, C-section, NICU admission appear higher than the general population.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Cesarean Section , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Premature Birth/virology , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 3141, 2020 02 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32081989

ABSTRACT

External cephalic version (ECV) is associated with a moderate degree of pain. Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that has shown promise in offering procedural analgesia. We undertook a clinical pilot to assess the viability of VR to reduce pain during ECV. In an open randomised controlled trial (RCT), we randomised 50 women to either VR or standard care each (25 per group). Women receiving VR were administered VR content (Skylights) via a headset. Pre- and post-procedural measures of pain, anxiety, device experience and vital signs were measured. There were no significant differences between groups (VR/no VR) in pain scores (60.68 vs 49.76; p = 0.2), ECV success rates (80% vs 76%; p = 0.7) or anxiety levels. The women receiving VR had a significantly higher anticipation of pain pre-procedurally (70.0 vs 50.0; p = 0.03). 20 (80%) of the VR women indicated that they would use VR again and 22 (88%) indicated they would recommend it to a friend having ECV. There were no significant differences between groups for side effects encountered or changes in vital signs. We have shown that using VR during ECV is feasible and appears safe. Our results inform the design of future RCTs.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Pain Management/methods , Version, Fetal/methods , Virtual Reality , Adult , Anxiety , Computer Simulation , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Pain , Pain Measurement/methods , Pilot Projects , Pregnancy , Version, Fetal/adverse effects
4.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 19(1): 514, 2019 Jul 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31337393

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early Health Technology Assessment (EHTA) is an evolving field in health policy which aims to provide decision support and mitigate risk during early medical device innovation. The clinician is a key stakeholder in this process and their role has traditionally been confined to assessing device efficacy and safety alone. There is however, no data exploring their role in this process and how they can contribute towards it. This motivated us to carry out a systematic review to delineate the role of the clinician in EHTA as per the PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search of peer reviewed literature was undertaken across PUBMED, OVID Medline and Web of science up till June 2018. Studies that were suitable for inclusion focused on clinician input in health technology assessment or early medical device innovation. A qualitative approach was utilised to generate themes on how clinicians could contribute in general and specific areas of EHTA. Data was manually extracted by the authors and themes were agreed in consensus using a grounded theory framework. The specific stages included: All stages of EHTA, Basic research on mechanisms, Targeting for specific product, Proof of principle and Prototype and product development. Bias was assessed utilising the NICE Qualitative checklist. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Areas identified in which the clinicians could contribute to EHTA included: i) needs driven problem solving, ii) conformity assessment of MDs, iii) economic evaluation of MDs and iv) addressing the conflicts in interest. For clinicians' input across the various specific areas of EHTA, an innovation framework was generated based on the subthemes extracted. CONCLUSIONS: The following review has identified the various segments in which clinicians can contribute to EHTA to inform stakeholders and has also proposed an innovation framework.


Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Professional Role , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...