Virtual Reality Therapy for Social Phobia: A Scoping Review

Preliminary Study of Efficacy and Safety of Self-Administered Virtual Exposure Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder vs. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most frequent mental disorders. Exposure to virtual reality can be a solution complementing standard CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy) or can be used as an independent therapeutic tool. The study’s objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of using self-administered virtual reality exposure vs. CBT and CBT with virtual exposure. We assessed the efficacy of the applied intervention with the Leibowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). We compared three groups: CBT (n = 25), CBT + VR (n = 29), and self-administered therapy without aid of a therapist (n = 19). The results indicated that all three groups showed changes on the LSAS. The simple effect analysis showed that there were no differences between experimental conditions at T0 (session 1) and T1 (session 9) and that the only significant difference occurred at T2 (session 14). The pairwise comparisons showed that the participants in the VR condition scored higher on the LSAS score during the measurement at T2 than participants in CBT condition. Our study has several limitations. The presented initial study shows that the methods of CBT for social anxiety used so far are also effective, while the VR tool for self-therapy requires further research.

The Use of Computer-Driven Technologies in the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effectiveness of computer-driven technologies for treatment of patients suffering from BPD. A systematic literature review was conducted using the Pubmed, EMBASE, PsycNET (PsycINFO), CINAHL and Google Scholar electronic databases for the period from their inception dates until 2022. Thirty studies were selected for abstract screening. Seven studies were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria. The remaining 23 studies were fully assessed, and 12 were excluded. Therefore, 11 studies were included in the analysis of the effectiveness of computer-driven technologies, which encompassed mobile applications, telehealth interventions, internet-based interventions, virtual reality MBT and dialogue-based integrated interventions. Computer-driven interventions are showing signs of effectiveness in the treatment of BPD symptoms. The limited number of articles found on the subject demonstrates a need for further exploration of this subject.

Digital Health Interventions for Delivery of Mental Health Care: Systematic and Comprehensive Meta-Review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted mental health care delivery to digital platforms, videoconferencing, and other mobile communications. However, existing reviews of digital health interventions are narrow in scope and focus on a limited number of mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive systematic meta-review of the literature to assess the state of digital health interventions for the treatment of mental health conditions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for secondary literature published between 2010 and 2021 on the use, efficacy, and appropriateness of digital health interventions for the delivery of mental health care.

RESULTS

Of the 3022 records identified, 466 proceeded to full-text review and 304 met the criteria for inclusion in this study. A majority (52%) of research involved the treatment of substance use disorders, 29% focused on mood, anxiety, and traumatic stress disorders, and >5% for each remaining mental health conditions. Synchronous and asynchronous communication, computerized therapy, and cognitive training appear to be effective but require further examination in understudied mental health conditions. Similarly, virtual reality, mobile apps, social media platforms, and web-based forums are novel technologies that have the potential to improve mental health but require higher quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital health interventions offer promise in the treatment of mental health conditions. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital health interventions provide a safer alternative to face-to-face treatment. However, further research on the applications of digital interventions in understudied mental health conditions is needed. Additionally, evidence is needed on the effectiveness and appropriateness of digital health tools for patients who are marginalized and may lack access to digital health interventions.

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.