Impact of 4 Weeks or More Immersive Virtual Reality on Quality of Life and Physical Activity in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Population aging poses significant public health challenges. Older adults often face multimorbidity, functional decline, and diminished quality of life. While physical activity can mitigate these effects, adherence remains low. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) has emerged as a promising, engaging tool to promote physical and cognitive health in this population. Objective: The review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of IVR interventions lasting 4 weeks or more on quality of life, physical activity, pain, perceived effort, and adverse events in older adults. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines. Literature was searched across PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, and Scopus, as well as sources of gray literature. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials involving participants aged >60 years, using IVR via head-mounted display. Outcomes assessed included quality of life, physical activity, pain, perceived effort, and adverse events. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0 and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation), respectively. Results: A total of 14 studies with 839 participants were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 8 were eligible for quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant moderate effect of IVR on quality of life (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.48, 95% CI 0.1-0.8; P=.007), particularly in interventions lasting 10 to 12 weeks or involving more than 600 minutes of exposure. For physical activity, no significant differences were found between IVR and control groups (SMD=-0.2, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.4; P=.50). Evidence for secondary outcomes (pain, perceived exertion, and adverse events) was limited and largely qualitative, with inconsistent findings. Pain outcomes, assessed in 2 studies, indicated reductions in the IVR group, especially when multimodal approaches were used. Perceived effort was not systematically measured. Adverse events were generally mild, with cybersickness being the most reported issue. Conclusions: IVR interventions of 4 weeks or more appear to moderately improve quality of life in older adults, especially those with clinical vulnerabilities or in institutional settings. Although effects on physical activity were not significant, trends suggest potential with appropriate program design. Preliminary findings support IVR's use in pain reduction, particularly when incorporating emotional and multisensory elements. The low incidence of adverse events suggests good tolerability. Overall, IVR is a promising and safe tool to support healthy aging, though further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,022 | 0,048 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».