Older Adults’ Experiences and Perceptions of Immersive Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immersive virtual reality (IVR) can be defined as a fully computer-generated environment shown on a head-mounted display. Existing research suggests that key features of IVR can assist older adults in their everyday lives, providing opportunities for health promotion and tackling social isolation and loneliness. There has been a surge in qualitative studies exploring older adults' experiences and perceptions of IVR. However, there has been no systematic synthesis of these studies to inform the design of new, more accessible IVR technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize qualitative studies exploring older adults' experiences and perceptions of IVR. METHODS: A systematic review and thematic synthesis were conducted following the ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) guidelines. In total, 2 reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis is derived from the qualitative method, thematic analysis. It involves 3 key steps: initial coding and grouping of these codes, the formation of descriptive themes from these codes, and going beyond these data to form analytical themes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach. RESULTS: Overall, 13 studies were included in the final synthesis, including 224 participants across 9 countries and 5 continents. Confidence in the evidence ranged from high to moderate. Three descriptive themes were generated: practical aspects of IVR use, experiencing unique features of IVR, and perceptions of IVR. The findings from the descriptive themes suggested that there are several improvements that need to be made to existing IVR devices to facilitate older adults' use of this technology. However, older adults' responses to IVR were generally positive. Three analytical themes were generated: tolerating the bad to experience the good, buying in to IVR (don't judge a book by its cover), and "it proves to me I can do it." The analytical themes illustrated that older adults were willing to tolerate discomforts that accompany existing IVR technologies to experience features such as immersive social networking. There was a discrepancy between older adults' perceptions of IVR before use-which were generally negative-and after use-which were generally positive-and IVR provided a platform for older adults to access certain activities and environments more easily than in the real world because of limitations caused by aging. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers insights into older adults' experiences and perceptions of IVR and suggests how a few improvements to its existing hardware and software as well as how it is first presented could offer new opportunities for older adults to take part in meaningful activities tailored to their needs and preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020200774; https://tinyurl.com/8f48w2vt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1177/16094069211009682.
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 | 0.050 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".