Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.

<h4>Background</h4>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 pa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Christine Vincent, Margaret Eberts, Tejal Naik, Victoria Gulick, C Virginia O'Hayer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/94af91662ef0426892710927a19a9303
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:94af91662ef0426892710927a19a9303
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:94af91662ef0426892710927a19a93032021-12-02T20:13:17ZProvider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0259364https://doaj.org/article/94af91662ef0426892710927a19a93032021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259364https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.Christine VincentMargaret EbertsTejal NaikVictoria GulickC Virginia O'HayerPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0259364 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Christine Vincent Margaret Eberts Tejal Naik Victoria Gulick C Virginia O'Hayer Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
description	<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
format	article
author	Christine Vincent Margaret Eberts Tejal Naik Victoria Gulick C Virginia O'Hayer
author_facet	Christine Vincent Margaret Eberts Tejal Naik Victoria Gulick C Virginia O'Hayer
author_sort	Christine Vincent
title	Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
title_short	Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
title_full	Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
title_fullStr	Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
title_full_unstemmed	Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
title_sort	provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/94af91662ef0426892710927a19a9303
work_keys_str_mv	AT christinevincent providerexperiencesofvirtualrealityinclinicaltreatment AT margareteberts providerexperiencesofvirtualrealityinclinicaltreatment AT tejalnaik providerexperiencesofvirtualrealityinclinicaltreatment AT victoriagulick providerexperiencesofvirtualrealityinclinicaltreatment AT cvirginiaohayer providerexperiencesofvirtualrealityinclinicaltreatment
_version_	1718374779640086528

Provider experiences of virtual reality in clinical treatment.

Ejemplares similares