Extended Reality for Mental Health Evaluation: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are the leading cause of health-related problems worldwide. It is projected that mental health disorders will be the leading cause of morbidity among adults as the incidence rates of anxiety and depression grow worldwide. Recently, "extended reality" (XR), a general term covering virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is paving the way for the delivery of mental health care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the adoption and implementation of XR technology used in interventions for mental disorders and to provide statistical analyses of the design, usage, and effectiveness of XR technology for mental health interventions with a worldwide demographic focus. METHODS: In this paper, we conducted a scoping review of the development and application of XR in the area of mental disorders. We performed a database search to identify relevant studies indexed in Google Scholar, PubMed, and the ACM Digital Library. A search period between August 2016 and December 2023 was defined to select papers related to the usage of VR, AR, and MR in a mental health context. The database search was performed with predefined queries, and a total of 831 papers were identified. Ten papers were identified through professional recommendation. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed and applied to ensure that only relevant studies were included in the literature review. RESULTS: We identified a total of 85 studies from 27 countries worldwide that used different types of VR, AR, and MR techniques for managing 14 types of mental disorders. By performing data analysis, we found that most of the studies focused on high-income countries, such as the United States (n=14, 16.47%) and Germany (n=12, 14.12%). None of the studies were for African countries. The majority of papers reported that XR techniques lead to a significant reduction in symptoms of anxiety or depression. The majority of studies were published in 2021 (n=26, 30.59%). This could indicate that mental disorder intervention received higher attention when COVID-19 emerged. Most studies (n=65, 76.47%) focused on a population in the age range of 18-65 years, while few studies (n=2, 3.35%) focused on teenagers (ie, subjects in the age range of 10-19 years). In addition, more studies were conducted experimentally (n=67, 78.82%) rather than by using analytical and modeling approaches (n=8, 9.41%). This shows that there is a rapid development of XR technology for mental health care. Furthermore, these studies showed that XR technology can effectively be used for evaluating mental disorders in a similar or better way that conventional approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In this scoping review, we studied the adoption and implementation of XR technology for mental disorder care. Our review shows that XR treatment yields high patient satisfaction, and follow-up assessments show significant improvement with large effect sizes. Moreover, the studies adopted unique designs that were set up to record and analyze the symptoms reported by their participants. This review may aid future research and development of various XR mechanisms for differentiated mental disorder procedures.
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 | 0.031 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".