Facilitators and Barriers to Using Virtual Reality and its Impact on Social Engagement in Aged Care Settings: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This scoping review aims to identify the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of VR technology in the aged-care setting. Background: Virtual reality (VR) offers the potential to reduce social isolation and loneliness through increased social engagement in aged-care settings. Methods and Analysis: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and took place between March and August 2022. The review included a three-step search strategy: (1) identifying keywords from CINHAL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science (2) conducting a second search using all identified keywords and index terms across selected databases; and (3) searching the reference lists of all included articles and reports for additional studies. Results: The final review included 22 articles. The analysis identified factors affecting the VR technology implementation in aged care settings to reduce isolation and loneliness: (a) key facilitators are local champions and staff training. (b) barriers include technological adaptability, video quality, and organizational culture. Conclusion: Existing evidence points to VR as a promising intervention to decrease loneliness and feelings of isolation and improve social engagement in older people living in aged-care settings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".