Novel Virtual Reality Intervention for Stress Reduction Among Patients With or at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Mixed Methods Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising, low-risk strategy to manage many forms of psychological stress and may be a modality to improve cardiovascular health. Recent scientific statements on the mind-heart-body connection call for better adherence to psychological screening and adoption of more holistic "behavioral cardiology" interventions that improve the overall health of patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: The aim of this study is to assess safety and preliminarily explore how a VR experience can aid in stress reduction among patients with or at risk for CVD. Methods: A convergent mixed methods approach was used for this single-arm prospective pilot study. In total, 20 patients were recruited from the University of California Los Angeles adult cardiology clinics and cardiac rehabilitation. Surveys and physiologic parameters were collected before, during, and after a 30-minute VR experience aimed at relaxation. The primary outcome was the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State (STAI-S) scale. They participated in a 90-minute visit, during which they completed surveys, including the STAI-S scale, before and after a 30-minute VR experience. Physiological parameters were also collected before, during, and after the experience. Visits concluded with semistructured interviews analyzed with inductive thematic analysis to add depth and nuance to our analysis. Results: STAI-S scale scores after the VR experience were significantly decreased from baseline (median 31, IQR 28-38 vs median 24, IQR-29.25; P<.001). Verbal feedback revealed that participants experienced a relaxing sense of "distance from stress" moderated by unexpected, intense audiovisual components. Heart rate significantly decreased (mean 73, SD 8 vs mean 67, SD 6 beats per minute; P<.001), while blood pressure (mean systolic 128, SD 14 vs mean systolic 129, SD 18 mm Hg; P=.75 and mean diastolic 79, SD 9 vs mean diastolic 80, SD 10 mm Hg; P=.60) and galvanic skin response (mean 0.74, SD 0.89 vs mean 0.70, SD 0.57 microsiemens; P=.45) remained the same. Changes in heart rate variability parameters were consistent with increased vagal tone over time but were only statistically significant at certain time points. Survey results and interviews generally indicated safety, tolerability, and openness to using VR again. Conclusions: This sample of patients with CVD or risk of CVD had above-average stress, consistent with epidemiological data; the statistically and clinically significant decrease in subjective perception of stress partially converged with physiologic data. Overall, the VR intervention was a safe and feasible stress reduction method. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this immersive therapy in reducing cardiovascular risk profiles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".