Use of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Technologies to Support Resilience and Skill-Building in Caregivers of Persons With Dementia: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia presents a growing public health challenge with most affected individuals living at home, placing significant responsibility on their caregivers. Various interventions, from traditional support groups and education programs to emerging technologies, and more specifically virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), aim to enhance caregiver skills. While VR/AR shows promise in educating and fostering empathy among caregivers and healthcare professionals, its overall effectiveness and practicality in older adults and dementia care warrant further exploration. This review aimed to summarize currently available VR and AR interventions tailored for family caregivers of persons living with dementia (PLWD) in home or clinical settings, including their level of effectiveness, and to compile a summary of features that contributed to technology acceptance in family caregivers of PLWD. We conducted a systematic search in OVID PsychInfo, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and ERIC, as well as CADTH's Grey Matters, OpenGrey, National Technical Information Service, OAIster, and Health Quality Ontario, to comprehensively summarize the existing evidence underscoring the role of VR and AR in supporting education, resilience-building, and skills training for family caregivers of PLWD. The search terms were built with the assistance of a research librarian and involved synonyms for VR, AR, and dementia. Two screeners conducted a rigorous screening and data extraction to analyze and summarize findings. Studies were included if they focused on family caregivers engaging in interventions utilizing a three-dimensional VR environment and/or Metaverse for group learning in psychotherapeutic modalities such as psychoeducation, therapy, communication, and skill-building. The primary outcome of the studies was assessing measures of well-being (e.g., quality of life, communication, interaction, personhood) and learning outcomes for caregivers, while the secondary outcomes focused on identifying barriers and facilitators influencing the acceptability of VR/AR among dementia caregivers. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to summarize key trends in technology and evidence effectiveness and acceptability. Of the 1,641 articles found, 112 were included, with six articles meeting inclusion for analysis. Studies differed in duration and frequency of data collection, with interventions varying from single events to months-long programs, often employing home-based approaches using VR or online platforms. No study used AR. Usability issues and unclear benefits of use were identified as factors that hinder technology acceptance for dementia caregivers. However, technologies demonstrated engaging user experiences, fostering skill-building, confidence, and competence among caregivers. Positive psychological effects were also observed, facilitated by immersive VR and AR interventions, resulting in improved caregiver empathy and reduced stress, depression, and loneliness. VR and AR interventions for family caregivers of PLWD show the potential to enhance empathy and skills and reduce stress. Challenges such as technological limitations and user inexperience issues persist. Home-based VR training aligns with caregiver comfort but lacks focus on financial aspects and cultural competencies. Co-design approaches offer solutions by addressing user concerns and promoting end-user engagement or empowerment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".