The Usefulness of Virtual Reality in Symptom Management during Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer Patients: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) emerges as a promising non-pharmacological intervention for managing symptoms and providing distraction during chemotherapy. This study aims to assess VR’s effectiveness on cancer-related symptoms, vital signs, and the patients’ perception of chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted on 100 patients. Participants were allocated into an intervention group (n = 55), which experienced immersive VR, and a comparison group (n = 45), which received usual care. Data were collected through questionnaires and checklists, including feedback on the VR experience, pain, vital signs, and common cancer symptoms, assessed through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Results: VR had a significant impact on reducing the perception of chemotherapy length. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction and tolerability. No adverse events were observed. VR did not have significant influence on pain intensity or vital signs. The only exceptions were oxygen saturation, where a significant difference (p = 0.02) was reported, and the perception of chemotherapy duration. Conclusions: As a non-pharmacological intervention, VR proves to be beneficial in minimizing the perceived length of chemotherapy sessions for lung cancer patients, enhancing their overall treatment experience. The intervention was found to be a safe, feasible, and well-accepted distraction technique. Future research should explore VR’s potential effects on a wider range of symptoms and evaluate its impact on long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".