Dataset Information

Active Virtual Reality for Chronic Primary Pain: Mixed Methods Randomized Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The modern management of chronic pain is largely focused on improving functional capacity (often despite ongoing pain) by using graded activation and exposure paradigms. However, many people with chronic pain find functional activation programs aversive, and dropout rates are high. Modern technologies such as virtual reality (VR) could provide a more enjoyable and less threatening way for people with chronic pain to engage in physical activity. Although VR has been successfully used for pain relief in acute and chronic pain settings, as well as to facilitate rehabilitation in conditions such as stroke and cerebral palsy, it is not known whether VR can also be used to improve functional outcomes in people with chronic pain.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of VR in a chronic pain treatment center and assess the acceptability of an active VR treatment program for patients in this setting.

Methods

For this mixed methods pilot study, which was designed to test the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed study methods, 29 people seeking treatment for chronic pain were randomized to an active VR intervention or physiotherapy treatment as usual (TAU). The TAU group completed a 6-week waitlist before receiving standard treatment to act as a no-treatment control group. The VR intervention comprised twice-weekly immersive and embodied VR sessions using commercially available gaming software, which was selected to encourage movement. A total of 7 VR participants completed semistructured interviews to assess their perception of the intervention.

Results

Of the 99 patients referred to physiotherapy, 53 (54%) were eligible, 29 (29%) enrolled, and 17 (17%) completed the trial, indicating that running an adequately powered RCT in this setting would not be feasible. Despite this, those in the VR group showed greater improvements in activity levels, pain intensity, and pain interference and reported greater treatment satisfaction and perceived improvement than both the waitlist and TAU groups. Relative effect sizes were larger when VR was compared with the waitlist (range small to very large) and smaller when VR was compared with TAU (range none to medium). The qualitative analysis produced the following three themes: VR is an enjoyable alternative to traditional physiotherapy, VR has functional and psychological benefits despite continued pain, and a well-designed VR setup is important.

Conclusions

The active VR intervention in this study was highly acceptable to participants, produced favorable effects when compared with the waitlist, and showed similar outcomes as those of TAU. These findings suggest that a confirmatory RCT is warranted; however, substantial barriers to recruitment indicate that incentivizing participation and using a different treatment setting or running a multicenter trial are needed.

SUBMITTER: Tuck N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9330488 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPediatric immunization is often associated with significant fear and anxiety among the children and their parents. Their distress may potentially affect their adherence to the childhood immunization schedule and the acceptance of other recommended vaccines by physicians.ObjectiveThe study primarily aimed to assess the feasibility of using immersive virtual reality (VR) during immunization in children in primary care. The secondary aim was to determine the effectiveness of immersive VR in alleviating pain and anxiety among children, reduction of anxiety of their parents and attending nurses during immunization compared to usual care without VR.MethodsA pilot open-label randomized control trial was conducted at a public primary care clinic in Singapore. Thirty children, aged 4-10 years were randomized to an intervention group (n = 15) using VR and a control group (n = 15) without VR during immunization. Feasibility was assessed by the response rate to the use of VR. The Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) and the Children's Fear Scale (CFS) were used to determine their pain and anxiety, respectively. The anxiety level of their accompanying parents and attending nurses were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) prior and post-immunization of these children. The FPS-R and CFS scores, and anxiety assessment for parents and nurses were assessed using Mann-Whitney U test. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference in the nurses' experience of using the VR application.ResultsOne child refused to use the VR equipment, constituting a rejection rate of 6.7% (1/15) but no adverse event occurred in the intervention arm. The overall response rate of 88% (30/34) when the parents were approached to participate in the study, indicating feasibility of using VR in childhood immunization. In the intervention group compared to the control group, the change in scores for CFS (median -1, IQR -2 to 0; P = 0.04), parental VAS (median -4, IQR -5 to -1; P = 0.04) were significantly decreased. After immunization, nurses scored favorably for VR, in terms of simplicity (median 9.5, IQR 5.72 to 10; P = 0.01), acceptability (median 10, IQR 5 to 10; P = 0.005) and willingness to use VR in the future (median 10, IQR 5 to 10; P = 0.02).ConclusionImmersive VR is feasible, safe and effective in alleviating anxiety among the children and parents. Nurses viewed the application of VR in childhood immunization favorably.Clinical trial registration[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04748367], identifier [NCT04748367].

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain has long been a major health burden that has been addressed through numerous forms of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment. One of the tenets of modern medicine is to minimize risk while providing efficacy. Further, because of its noninvasive nature, virtual reality (VR) provides an attractive platform for potentially developing novel therapeutic modalities.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of a novel VR-based digital therapy for the treatment of chronic pain.MethodsAn open-label study assessed the feasibility of using virtual embodiment in VR to treat chronic pain. In total, 24 patients with chronic pain were recruited from local pain clinics and completed 8 sessions of a novel digital therapeutic that combines virtual embodiment with graded motor imagery to deliver functional rehabilitation exercises over the course of 4 weeks. Pain intensity as measured by a visual analog scale before and after each virtual embodiment training session was used as the primary outcome measure. Additionally, a battery of patient-reported pain questionnaires (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire) were administered before and after 8 sessions of virtual embodiment training as exploratory outcome measures to assess if the measures are appropriate and warrant a larger randomized controlled trial.ResultsA 2-way ANOVA on session × pre- versus postvirtual embodiment training revealed that individual virtual embodiment training sessions significantly reduced the intensity of pain as measured by the visual analog scale (P<.001). Perceived disability due to lower back pain as measured by the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire significantly improved (P=.003) over the 4-week course of virtual embodiment regimen. Improvement was also observed on the helplessness subscale of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (P=.02).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that functional rehabilitation exercises delivered in VR are safe and may have positive effects on alleviating the symptoms of chronic pain. Additionally, the virtual embodiment intervention may improve perceived disability and helplessness of patients with chronic pain after 8 sessions. The results support the justification for a larger randomized controlled trial to assess the extent to which virtual embodiment training can exert an effect on symptoms associated with chronic pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04060875; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04060875.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) in different immersive conditions has been increasingly used as a nonpharmacological method for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of VR-assisted active training versus conventional exercise or physiotherapy in chronic musculoskeletal pain and to analyze the effects of immersive versus nonimmersive VR on pain outcomes.MethodsThis systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to June 9, 2024. RCTs comparing adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain receiving VR-assisted training were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes included functional disability and kinesiophobia. Available data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were graded using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool version 2.ResultsIn total, 28 RCTs including 1114 participants with some concerns for a high risk of bias were identified, and 25 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In low back pain, short-term outcomes measured post intervention showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.79, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.87; P<.001), improving disability (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16; P=.002), and kinesiophobia (SMD -2.94, 95% CI -5.20 to -0.68; P=.01). Intermediate-term outcomes measured at 6 months also showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (SMD -8.15, 95% CI -15.29 to -1.01; P=.03), and kinesiophobia (SMD -4.28, 95% CI -8.12 to -0.44; P=.03) compared to conventional active training. For neck pain, immersive VR reduced pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.08; P=.02) but not disability and kinesiophobia in the short term. No statistical significances were detected for knee pain or other pain regions at all time points. In addition, 2 (8%) studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsBoth nonimmersive and immersive VR-assisted active training is effective in reducing back and neck pain symptoms. Our study findings suggest that VR is effective in alleviating chronic musculoskeletal pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022302912; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=302912.

Project description:BackgroundImmersive virtual reality (VR) is a promising therapy to improve the experience of patients with critical illness and may help avoid postdischarge functional impairments. However, the determinants of interest and usability may vary locally and reports of uptake in the literature are variable.ObjectiveThe aim of this mixed methods feasibility study was to assess the acceptability and potential utility of immersive VR in critically ill patients at a single institution.MethodsAdults without delirium who were admitted to 1 of 2 intensive care units were offered the opportunity to participate in 5-15 minutes of immersive VR delivered by a VR headset. Patient vital signs, heart rate variability, mood, and pain were assessed before and after the VR experience. Pre-post comparisons were performed using paired 2-sided t tests. A semistructured interview was administered after the VR experience. Patient descriptions of the experience, issues, and potential uses were summarized with thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 35 patients offered the chance to participate, 20 (57%) agreed to partake in the immersive VR experience, with no difference in participation rate by age. Improvements were observed in overall mood (mean difference 1.8 points, 95% CI 0.6-3.0; P=.002), anxiety (difference of 1.7 points, 95% CI 0.8-2.7; P=.001), and pain (difference of 1.3 points, 95% CI 0.5-2.1; P=.003) assessed on 1-10 scales. The heart rate changed by a mean of -1.1 (95% CI -0.3 to -1.9; P=.008) beats per minute (bpm) from a baseline of 86.1 (SD 11.8) bpm and heart rate variability, assessed by the stress index (SI), changed by a mean of -5.0 (95% CI -1.5 to -8.5; P=.004) seconds-2 from a baseline SI of 40.0 (SD 23) seconds-2. Patients commented on the potential for the therapy to address pain, lessen anxiety, and facilitate calmness. Technical challenges were minimal and there were no adverse effects observed.ConclusionsPatient acceptance of immersive VR was high in a mostly medical intensive care population with little prior VR experience. Patients commented on the potential of immersive VR to ameliorate cognitive and emotional symptoms. Investigators can consider integrating minimally modified commercial VR headsets into the existing intensive care unit workflow to further assess VR's efficacy for a variety of endpoints.