Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Reducing Perceived Pain and Anxiety Among Patients Within a Hospital System: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within hospital systems, diverse subsets of patients are subject to minimally invasive procedures that provide therapeutic relief and necessary health data that are often perceived as anxiogenic or painful. These feelings are particularly relevant to patients experiencing procedures where they are conscious and not sedated or placed under general anesthesia that renders them incapacitated. Pharmacologic pain management and topical anesthetic creams are used to manage these feelings; however, distraction-based methods can provide nonpharmacologic means to modify the painful experience and discomfort often associated with these procedures. Recent studies support distraction as a useful method for reducing anxiety and pain and as a result, improving patient experience. Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology that provides an immersive user experience and can operate through a distraction-based method to reduce the negative or painful experience often related to procedures where the patient is conscious. Given the possible short-term and long-term outcomes of poorly managed pain and enduring among patients, health care professionals are challenged to improve patient well-being during medically essential procedures. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot project is to assess the efficacy of using VR as a distraction-based intervention for anxiety or pain management compared to other nonpharmacologic interventions in a variety of hospital settings, specifically in patients undergoing lumbar puncture procedures and bone marrow biopsies at the oncology ward, patients receiving nerve block for a broken bone at an anesthesia or surgical center, patients undergoing a cleaning at a dental clinic, patients conscious during an ablation procedure at a cardiology clinic, and patients awake during a kidney biopsy at a nephrology clinic. This will provide the framework for additional studies in other health care settings. METHODS: In a single visit, patients eligible for the study will complete brief preprocedural and postprocedural questionnaires about their perceived fear, anxiety, and pain levels. During the procedure, research assistants will place a VR headset on the patient and the patient will undergo a VR experience to distract from any pain felt from the procedure. Participants' vitals, including blood pressure, heart rate, and rate of respiration, will also be recorded before, during, and after the procedure. RESULTS: The study is already underway, and results support a decrease in perceived pain by 1.00 and a decrease in perceived anxiety by 0.3 compared to the control group (on a 10-point Likert scale). Among the VR intervention group, the average rating for comfort was 4.35 out of 5. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide greater insight into how patients' perception of anxiety and pain could potentially be altered. Furthermore, metrics related to the operational efficiency of providing a VR intervention compared to a control will provide insight into the feasibility and integration of such technologies in routine practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52649.
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 | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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".