Virtual Reality Self-help Treatment for Aviophobia: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aviophobia (the fear of flying) can greatly impact the daily life functioning of people with the condition. Traditional exposure-based treatment is hampered by the limited availability of airplane practice situations, which is a result of economical and practical concerns. Easily accessible and low-cost virtual reality exposure therapy may address these challenges. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to investigate the effectiveness of ZeroPhobia: Aviophobia (a self-help mobile app-based treatment) in reducing flight anxiety symptoms and depressive and anxiety symptoms. We will also investigate the effects of usage intensity, the sense of immersion, inherent absorption ability, and perceived user-friendliness on the treatment effect. METHODS: Participants (N=114) who are aged 18-64 years and experience at least mild symptoms of aviophobia will be recruited from the general Dutch population and randomized into a treatment group or waitlist control group. By using their own phones and rudimentary mobile virtual reality headsets, participants will receive six modules of psychoeducation and cognitive behavioral therapy, which will include six levels of virtual reality exposure therapy over a period of 6 weeks. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, posttest (ie, after 6 weeks), and 3- and 12-month follow-ups. The primary outcome measure of our study is the Flight Anxiety Situations Questionnaire. The secondary outcome measures include anxiety and depression measures and additional covariates (including usage intensity, the degree of immersion, etc). We will test treatment effectiveness by conducting an intention-to-treat analysis and estimating average treatment effects on the treated. The mechanisms of treatment effect will also be explored. RESULTS: The study was funded on September 25, 2018. Ethical approval was received on October 11, 2019. Recruitment closed on May 7, 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Our study will further the scientific understanding and clinical implications of technology's current ability to aid in providing effective, accessible treatment for the fear of flying. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NL70238.029.19; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8257. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/22008.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".