RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Virtual reality (VR) might improve symptom management, but there is limited evidence regarding VR in palliative care. We evaluated the feasibility of VR and impact on anxiety and pain for patients in a hospital palliative care consultation service. METHODS: Patients referred to a hospital specialist palliative care team, with anxiety or pain, were offered a VR intervention (a short audiovisual experience). Participants rated anxiety and pain on a 0-10 Likert severity scale pre intervention/post intervention and completed an evaluation form. Change in symptom scores was analysed by parametric statistics. RESULTS: 28 participants used VR a total of 42 times with no adverse events. Mean pain score reduced by 29% from 4.10 (SD=2.71) pre intervention to 2.93 (SD=2.45) post intervention (t(27)=5.150, p<0.001). Mean anxiety scores reduced by 40% from 4.43 (SD=2.56) to 2.65 (SD=2.24) (t(27)=5.058, p<0.001). Patients rated the experience on average 4.75/5 and all would recommend use to a friend. VR was described as absorbing and relaxing. CONCLUSION: VR may improve anxiety and pain and was acceptable in this setting. Large-scale evaluation will generate important data on feasibility and implementation.
RESUMO
It is well established that anxious individuals show biases in information processing, such that they attend preferentially to threatening stimuli and interpret emotional ambiguity in a threatening way. It has also been established that these biases in attention and interpretation can causally influence anxiety. Recent advances in experimental work have involved the development of a paradigm known as Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM), a constellation of procedures which directly modify bias using computerised tasks. Excitingly, these procedures have been shown to reduce bias in attention to threat (CBM-A), and to promote a positive interpretive bias (CBM-I) in anxious populations; furthermore, these modifications are associated with reductions in anxiety. We believe that these techniques have the potential to create a real clinical impact for people with anxiety. Initial studies involved volunteer participants who reached criteria for clinical diagnoses to be made, but emerging evidence suggests that patients referred for therapy also benefit. For the purposes of experimentation researchers have normally looked at one procedure at a time. In order to try to maximise the potential clinical impact we wished to investigate whether the combination of the procedures would be more effective than either alone. We also wished to investigate whether the procedures could be carried out in routine clinical settings with patients referred to an out-patient psychological treatment service. We therefore carried out a pilot study using a combined approach of CBM-A and CBM-I with a sample of 13 anxious patients referred to an out-patient psychology service for cognitive therapy. The results showed successful reductions in threat related attentional and interpretive bias, as well as reductions in trait and state anxiety. Participant reports describe the procedures as acceptable, with the attentional task experienced as boring, but the interpretive one experienced as helpful. While recognising the methodological problems of the pilot study we believe that these results give indications that the techniques could provide an effective intervention for anxiety, and that further study is well justified.
