MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406639000 · doi:10.2196/66925

Impact of a Virtual Reality Intervention on Stigma, Empathy, and Attitudes Toward Patients With Psychotic Disorders Among Mental Health Care Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4406639000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Ling Tay, Lucas Lim, Rohan Puthran, Rajini Rajendran, Ker‐Chiah Wei, Huiting Xie, Kang Sim

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMental healthEmpathyPsychological interventionClinical psychologyInterpersonal Reactivity IndexPsychologyRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryStigma (botany)Social stigmaMedicinePerspective-takingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that psychotic disorders are among the most stigmatized mental disorders. Of note, virtual reality (VR) interventions have been associated with improvements in attitudes and empathy and reduced stigma toward individuals with psychotic disorders, especially among undergraduates, but this has not been examined among mental health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed VR intervention for mental health care professionals to improve attitudes and empathy and reduce stigma toward people with psychotic disorders. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial and recruited eligible mental health care professionals from a tertiary mental health care institution. Both arms (VR intervention and VR control groups) were evaluated at baseline, postintervention, and 1-month follow up. The evaluation included outcomes related to attitudes (modified attitudes toward people with schizophrenia scale), stigma (social distance scale, personal stigma scale), and empathy (empathetic concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index). The experience with the VR intervention was assessed using a user satisfaction questionnaire, and qualitative feedback was gathered. RESULTS: Overall, 180 mental health care professionals participated and completed the study. Both groups showed improvements in attitude, social distance, and stigma scores but not the empathy score following the intervention. The VR intervention group had better user satisfaction than the VR control group. In addition, certain outcome measures were positively associated with specific factors including female gender, higher education level, certain job roles, years of work, and presence of loved ones with a mental disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Both the intervention and control VR groups of mental health care professionals showed improvements in attitudes, stigma, and social distance toward people with psychotic disorders. Future longitudinal studies may want to evaluate the impact of VR on caregivers and the public on these same and other outcome measures to reduce stigma and improve empathy toward individuals with psychotic disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT05982548; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05982548.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.423 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental Health→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→