Feasibility and Efficacy of Virtual Reality Interventions to Improve Psychosocial Functioning in Psychosis: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional recovery in psychosis remains a challenge despite current evidence-based treatment approaches. To address this problem, innovative interventions using virtual reality (VR) have recently been developed. VR technologies have enabled the development of realistic environments in which individuals with psychosis can receive psychosocial treatment interventions in more ecological settings than traditional clinics. These interventions may therefore increase the transfer of learned psychosocial skills to real-world environments, thereby promoting long-term functional recovery. However, the overall feasibility and efficacy of such interventions within the psychosis population remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to investigate whether VR-based psychosocial interventions are feasible and enjoyable for individuals with psychosis, synthesize current evidence on the efficacy of VR-based psychosocial interventions for psychosis, and identify the limitations in the current literature to guide future research. METHODS: This research followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed and PsycINFO in May 2021. We searched for peer-reviewed English articles that used a psychosocial intervention with a VR component. Participants in the included studies were diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or another psychotic disorder. The included studies were divided into four categories as follows: cognitive remediation interventions, social skills interventions, vocational skills interventions, and auditory verbal hallucinations and paranoia interventions. The risk of bias assessment was performed for each study. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included in this systematic review. Of these 18 studies, 4 (22%) studies used a cognitive remediation intervention, 4 (22%) studies used a social skills intervention, 3 (17%) studies used a vocational skills intervention, and 7 (39%) studies implemented an intervention aimed at improving auditory verbal hallucinations or paranoia. A total of 745 individuals with psychosis were included in the study. All the studies that evaluated feasibility showed that VR-based psychosocial interventions were feasible and enjoyable for individuals with psychosis. The preliminary evidence on efficacy included in this review suggests that VR-based psychosocial interventions can improve cognitive, social, and vocational skills in individuals with psychosis. VR-based interventions may also improve the symptoms of auditory verbal hallucinations and paranoia. The skills that participants learned through these interventions were durable, transferred into real-world environments, and led to improved functional outcomes, such as autonomy, managing housework, and work performance. CONCLUSIONS: VR-based interventions may represent a novel and efficacious approach for improving psychosocial functioning in psychosis. Therefore, VR-based psychosocial interventions represent a promising adjunctive therapy for the treatment of psychosis, which may be used to improve psychosocial skills, community functioning, and quality of life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".