Usability Testing of an Interactive Virtual Reality Distraction Intervention to Reduce Procedural Pain in Children and Adolescents With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Needle procedures are among the most distressing aspects of pediatric cancer-related treatment. Virtual reality (VR) distraction offers promise for needle-related pain and distress given its highly immersive and interactive virtual environment. This study assessed the usability (ease of use and understanding, acceptability) of a custom VR intervention for children with cancer undergoing implantable venous access device (IVAD) needle insertion. METHOD: Three iterative cycles of mixed-method usability testing with semistructured interviews were undertaken to refine the VR. RESULTS: Participants included 17 children and adolescents (8-18 years old) with cancer who used the VR intervention prior to or during IVAD access. Most participants reported the VR as easy to use (82%) and understand (94%), and would like to use it during subsequent needle procedures (94%). Based on usability testing, refinements were made to VR hardware, software, and clinical implementation. Refinements focused on increasing responsiveness, interaction, and immersion of the VR program, reducing head movement for VR interaction, and enabling participant alerts to steps of the procedure by clinical staff. No adverse events of nausea or dizziness were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The VR intervention was deemed acceptable and safe. Next steps include assessing feasibility and effectiveness of the VR intervention for pain and distress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".