Immersive Technologies for Depression Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression significantly impacts quality of life, affecting approximately 280 million people worldwide. However, only 16.5% of those affected receive treatment, indicating a substantial treatment gap. Immersive technologies (IMTs) such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality offer new avenues for treating depression by creating immersive environments for therapeutic interventions. Despite their potential, significant gaps exist in the current evidence regarding the design, implementation, and use of IMTs for depression care. OBJECTIVE: We aim to map the available evidence on IMT interventions targeting depression treatment. METHODS: This scoping review followed a methodological framework, and we systematically searched databases for studies on IMTs and depression. The focus was on randomized clinical trials involving adults and using IMTs. The selection and charting process involved multiple reviewers to minimize bias. RESULTS: The search identified 16 peer-reviewed articles, predominantly from Europe (n=10, 63%), with a notable emphasis on Poland (n=9, 56%), which contributed to more than half of the articles. Most of the studies (9/16, 56%) were conducted between 2020 and 2021. Regarding participant demographics, of the 16 articles, 5 (31%) exclusively involved female participants, and 7 (44%) featured participants whose mean or median age was >60 years. Regarding technical aspects, all studies focused on VR, with most using stand-alone VR headsets (14/16, 88%), and interventions typically ranging from 2 to 8 weeks, predominantly in hospital settings (11/16, 69%). Only 2 (13%) of the 16 studies mentioned using a specific VR design framework in planning their interventions. The most frequently used therapeutic approach was Ericksonian psychotherapy, used in 56% (9/16) of the studies. Notably, none of the articles reported using an implementation framework or identified barriers and enablers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights the growing interest in using IMTs, particularly VR, for depression treatment but emphasizes the need for more inclusive and comprehensive research. Future studies should explore varied therapeutic approaches and cost-effectiveness as well as the inclusion of augmented reality to fully realize the potential of IMTs in mental health care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".